Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research article

Estimating risk ratio from any standard epidemiological design by doubling the cases

Authors: Yilin Ning, Anastasia Lam, Marie Reilly

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Despite the ease of interpretation and communication of a risk ratio (RR), and several other advantages in specific settings, the odds ratio (OR) is more commonly reported in epidemiological and clinical research. This is due to the familiarity of the logistic regression model for estimating adjusted ORs from data gathered in a cross-sectional, cohort or case-control design. The preservation of the OR (but not RR) in case-control samples has contributed to the perception that it is the only valid measure of relative risk from case-control samples. For cohort or cross-sectional data, a method known as ‘doubling-the-cases’ provides valid estimates of RR and an expression for a robust standard error has been derived, but is not available in statistical software packages.

Methods

In this paper, we first describe the doubling-of-cases approach in the cohort setting and then extend its application to case-control studies by incorporating sampling weights and deriving an expression for a robust standard error. The performance of the estimator is evaluated using simulated data, and its application illustrated in a study of neonatal jaundice. We provide an R package that implements the method for any standard design.

Results

Our work illustrates that the doubling-of-cases approach for estimating an adjusted RR from cross-sectional or cohort data can also yield valid RR estimates from case-control data. The approach is straightforward to apply, involving simple modification of the data followed by logistic regression analysis. The method performed well for case-control data from simulated cohorts with a range of prevalence rates. In the application to neonatal jaundice, the RR estimates were similar to those from relative risk regression, whereas the OR from naive logistic regression overestimated the RR despite the low prevalence of the outcome.

Conclusions

By providing an R package that estimates an adjusted RR from cohort, cross-sectional or case-control studies, we have enabled the method to be easily implemented with familiar software, so that investigators are not limited to reporting an OR and can examine the RR when it is of interest.
Literature
10.
go back to reference Lee J, Chia K. Estimation of prevalence rate ratios for cross sectional data:an example in occupational epidemiology. Br J Ind Med. 1993; 50:861–64.PubMedPubMedCentral Lee J, Chia K. Estimation of prevalence rate ratios for cross sectional data:an example in occupational epidemiology. Br J Ind Med. 1993; 50:861–64.PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Miettinen O. Design options in epidemiologic research. an update. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1982; 8:7–14.CrossRef Miettinen O. Design options in epidemiologic research. an update. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1982; 8:7–14.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Wacholder S. Binomial regression in glim, estimating risk ratios and risk differences. Am J Epidemiol. 1986; 123:174–84.CrossRef Wacholder S. Binomial regression in glim, estimating risk ratios and risk differences. Am J Epidemiol. 1986; 123:174–84.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Zocchetti C, Consonni D, Bertazzi P. Re: Estimation of prevalence rate ratios from cross-sectional data (letter). Int J Epidemiol. 1995; 24:1064–105.CrossRef Zocchetti C, Consonni D, Bertazzi P. Re: Estimation of prevalence rate ratios from cross-sectional data (letter). Int J Epidemiol. 1995; 24:1064–105.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Skov T, Deddens J, Petersen M, Endahl L. Prevalence proportion ratios: estimation and hypothesis testing. Int J Epidemiol. 1998; 27:91–95.CrossRef Skov T, Deddens J, Petersen M, Endahl L. Prevalence proportion ratios: estimation and hypothesis testing. Int J Epidemiol. 1998; 27:91–95.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Reilly M, Pepe M. A mean score method for missing and auxiliary covariate data in regression models. Biometrika. 1995; 82(2):299–314.CrossRef Reilly M, Pepe M. A mean score method for missing and auxiliary covariate data in regression models. Biometrika. 1995; 82(2):299–314.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Deddens J, Petersen M. Re: ‘estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes’. Am J Epidemiol. 2004; 159:213–15.CrossRef Deddens J, Petersen M. Re: ‘estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes’. Am J Epidemiol. 2004; 159:213–15.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Estimating risk ratio from any standard epidemiological design by doubling the cases
Authors
Yilin Ning
Anastasia Lam
Marie Reilly
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01636-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2022 Go to the issue