Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research article

Comparison of robustness to outliers between robust poisson models and log-binomial models when estimating relative risks for common binary outcomes: a simulation study

Authors: Wansu Chen, Jiaxiao Shi, Lei Qian, Stanley P Azen

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To estimate relative risks or risk ratios for common binary outcomes, the most popular model-based methods are the robust (also known as modified) Poisson and the log-binomial regression. Of the two methods, it is believed that the log-binomial regression yields more efficient estimators because it is maximum likelihood based, while the robust Poisson model may be less affected by outliers. Evidence to support the robustness of robust Poisson models in comparison with log-binomial models is very limited.

Methods

In this study a simulation was conducted to evaluate the performance of the two methods in several scenarios where outliers existed.

Results

The findings indicate that for data coming from a population where the relationship between the outcome and the covariate was in a simple form (e.g. log-linear), the two models yielded comparable biases and mean square errors. However, if the true relationship contained a higher order term, the robust Poisson models consistently outperformed the log-binomial models even when the level of contamination is low.

Conclusions

The robust Poisson models are more robust (or less sensitive) to outliers compared to the log-binomial models when estimating relative risks or risk ratios for common binary outcomes. Users should be aware of the limitations when choosing appropriate models to estimate relative risks or risk ratios.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Greenland S: Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. Am J Epidemiol. 1987, 125 (5): 761-768.PubMed Greenland S: Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. Am J Epidemiol. 1987, 125 (5): 761-768.PubMed
2.
go back to reference Agrawal D: Inappropriate interpretation of the odds ratio: oddly not that uncommon. Pediatrics. 2005, 116: 1612-1613.CrossRefPubMed Agrawal D: Inappropriate interpretation of the odds ratio: oddly not that uncommon. Pediatrics. 2005, 116: 1612-1613.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Mirjam JK, Cessie SL, Algra A, Vandenbroucke JP: Overestimation of risk ratios by odds ratios in trials and cohort studies: alternatives to logistic regression. Can Med Assoc J. 2012, 184 (8): 895-899. 10.1503/cmaj.101715.CrossRef Mirjam JK, Cessie SL, Algra A, Vandenbroucke JP: Overestimation of risk ratios by odds ratios in trials and cohort studies: alternatives to logistic regression. Can Med Assoc J. 2012, 184 (8): 895-899. 10.1503/cmaj.101715.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Zhang J, Yu KF: What’s relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA. 1998, 280: 1690-1691. 10.1001/jama.280.19.1690.CrossRefPubMed Zhang J, Yu KF: What’s relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA. 1998, 280: 1690-1691. 10.1001/jama.280.19.1690.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference McNutt LA, Wu C, Xue X, Hafner JP: Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 2003, 157 (10): 940-943. 10.1093/aje/kwg074.CrossRefPubMed McNutt LA, Wu C, Xue X, Hafner JP: Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 2003, 157 (10): 940-943. 10.1093/aje/kwg074.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Miettinen O: Design options in epidemiologic research. An update. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1982, 8 (Suppl 1): 7-14.PubMed Miettinen O: Design options in epidemiologic research. An update. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1982, 8 (Suppl 1): 7-14.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Schouten EG, Dekker JM, Kok FJ, Le Cessie S, Van Houwelingen HC, Pool J, Vanderbroucke JP: Risk ratio and rate ratio estimation in case-cohort designs: hypertension and cardiovascular mortality. Stat Med. 1993, 12: 1733-1745. 10.1002/sim.4780121808.CrossRefPubMed Schouten EG, Dekker JM, Kok FJ, Le Cessie S, Van Houwelingen HC, Pool J, Vanderbroucke JP: Risk ratio and rate ratio estimation in case-cohort designs: hypertension and cardiovascular mortality. Stat Med. 1993, 12: 1733-1745. 10.1002/sim.4780121808.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Skov T, Deddens J, Petersen MR, Endahl L: Prevalence proportion ratios: estimation and hypothesis testing. Int J Epidemiol. 1998, 27: 91-95. 10.1093/ije/27.1.91.CrossRefPubMed Skov T, Deddens J, Petersen MR, Endahl L: Prevalence proportion ratios: estimation and hypothesis testing. Int J Epidemiol. 1998, 27: 91-95. 10.1093/ije/27.1.91.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Greenland S: Model-based estimation of relative risks and other epidemiologic measures in studies of common outcomes and in case–control studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2004, 160 (4): 301-305. 10.1093/aje/kwh221.CrossRefPubMed Greenland S: Model-based estimation of relative risks and other epidemiologic measures in studies of common outcomes and in case–control studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2004, 160 (4): 301-305. 10.1093/aje/kwh221.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Stijnen T, Van Houwelingen HC: Relative risk, risk difference and rate difference models for sparse stratified data: a pseudo likelihood approach. Stat Med. 1993, 12 (24): 2285-2303. 10.1002/sim.4780122406.CrossRefPubMed Stijnen T, Van Houwelingen HC: Relative risk, risk difference and rate difference models for sparse stratified data: a pseudo likelihood approach. Stat Med. 1993, 12 (24): 2285-2303. 10.1002/sim.4780122406.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Barros AJ, Hirakata VN: Alternatives for logistic regression in cross-sectional studies- an empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the prevalence ratio. BMC Med Res Method. 2003, 3 (21): 1-13. Barros AJ, Hirakata VN: Alternatives for logistic regression in cross-sectional studies- an empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the prevalence ratio. BMC Med Res Method. 2003, 3 (21): 1-13.
12.
go back to reference Zou G: A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004, 159 (7): 702-706. 10.1093/aje/kwh090.CrossRefPubMed Zou G: A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004, 159 (7): 702-706. 10.1093/aje/kwh090.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Wacholder S: Binomial regression in GLIM: estimating risk ratios and risk differences. Am J Epidemiol. 1986, 123: 174-184.PubMed Wacholder S: Binomial regression in GLIM: estimating risk ratios and risk differences. Am J Epidemiol. 1986, 123: 174-184.PubMed
14.
go back to reference Petersen MR, Deddens JA: A comparison of two methods for estimating prevalence ratios. BMC Med Res Method. 2008, 8 (1): 9-10.1186/1471-2288-8-9.CrossRef Petersen MR, Deddens JA: A comparison of two methods for estimating prevalence ratios. BMC Med Res Method. 2008, 8 (1): 9-10.1186/1471-2288-8-9.CrossRef
15.
16.
go back to reference Deddens JA, Petersen MR, Lei X: In Proceedings at the SAS Users Group International Proceedings: March 30 SUGI28. Estimation of Prevalence Ratios When PROC GENMOD Does not Converge. 2003, Washington: Seattle Deddens JA, Petersen MR, Lei X: In Proceedings at the SAS Users Group International Proceedings: March 30 SUGI28. Estimation of Prevalence Ratios When PROC GENMOD Does not Converge. 2003, Washington: Seattle
17.
go back to reference Petersen MR, Deddens JA: A revised SAS macro for maximum likelihood estimation of prevalence ratios using the COPY method [letter]. Occup Environ Med. 2009, 66 (9): 639-CrossRefPubMed Petersen MR, Deddens JA: A revised SAS macro for maximum likelihood estimation of prevalence ratios using the COPY method [letter]. Occup Environ Med. 2009, 66 (9): 639-CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Institute SAS: Software Version 9.2. 2008, Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Institute SAS: Software Version 9.2. 2008, Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute
19.
go back to reference McCullagh P, Nelder J: Generalized Linear Models. 1989, New York: John Wiley & Sons, SecondthCrossRef McCullagh P, Nelder J: Generalized Linear Models. 1989, New York: John Wiley & Sons, SecondthCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Deddens JA, Petersen MR: Approaches for estimating prevalence ratios. Occup Environ Med. 2008, 65: 501-506. 10.1136/oem.2007.034777.CrossRef Deddens JA, Petersen MR: Approaches for estimating prevalence ratios. Occup Environ Med. 2008, 65: 501-506. 10.1136/oem.2007.034777.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Spiegelman D, Hertzmark E: Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences. Am J Epidemiol. 2005, 162: 199-200. 10.1093/aje/kwi188.CrossRefPubMed Spiegelman D, Hertzmark E: Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences. Am J Epidemiol. 2005, 162: 199-200. 10.1093/aje/kwi188.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S: Applied Logistic Regression. 2000, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2CrossRef Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S: Applied Logistic Regression. 2000, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Imon AHMR, Hadi AS: Identification of multiple high leverage points in logistic regression. J Appl Stat. 2013, 40 (12): 2601-2616. 10.1080/02664763.2013.822057.CrossRef Imon AHMR, Hadi AS: Identification of multiple high leverage points in logistic regression. J Appl Stat. 2013, 40 (12): 2601-2616. 10.1080/02664763.2013.822057.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Syaiba BA, Habshah M: Robust logistic diagnostic for the identification of high leverage points in logistic regression model. J Appl Sci. 2010, 10 (23): 2042-3050. Syaiba BA, Habshah M: Robust logistic diagnostic for the identification of high leverage points in logistic regression model. J Appl Sci. 2010, 10 (23): 2042-3050.
25.
go back to reference Blizzard L, Hosmer DW: Parameter estimation and goodness-of-fit in log binomial regression. Biometrical J. 2006, 48 (1): 5-22. 10.1002/bimj.200410165.CrossRef Blizzard L, Hosmer DW: Parameter estimation and goodness-of-fit in log binomial regression. Biometrical J. 2006, 48 (1): 5-22. 10.1002/bimj.200410165.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Yu B, Wang Z: Estimating relative risks for common outcome using PROC NLP. Comput Meth Prog Bio. 2008, 90 (2): 179-186.CrossRef Yu B, Wang Z: Estimating relative risks for common outcome using PROC NLP. Comput Meth Prog Bio. 2008, 90 (2): 179-186.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of robustness to outliers between robust poisson models and log-binomial models when estimating relative risks for common binary outcomes: a simulation study
Authors
Wansu Chen
Jiaxiao Shi
Lei Qian
Stanley P Azen
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-82

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2014 Go to the issue