Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Population Health Metrics 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Evaluation of stability of directly standardized rates for sparse data using simulation methods

Authors: Joan K. Morris, Joachim Tan, Paul Fryers, Jonathan Bestwick

Published in: Population Health Metrics | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Directly standardized rates (DSRs) adjust for different age distributions in different populations and enable, say, the rates of disease between the populations to be directly compared. They are routinely published but there is concern that a DSR is not valid when it is based on a “small” number of events. The aim of this study was to determine the value at which a DSR should not be published when analyzing real data in England.

Methods

Standard Monte Carlo simulation techniques were used assuming the number of events in 19 age groups (i.e., 0–4, 5–9, ... 90+ years) follow independent Poisson distributions. The total number of events, age specific risks, and the population sizes in each age group were varied. For each of 10,000 simulations the DSR (using the 2013 European Standard Population weights), together with the coverage of three different methods (normal approximation, Dobson, and Tiwari modified gamma) of estimating the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated.

Results

The normal approximation was, as expected, not suitable for use when fewer than 100 events occurred. The Tiwari method and the Dobson method of calculating confidence intervals produced similar estimates and either was suitable when the expected or observed numbers of events were 10 or greater. The accuracy of the CIs was not influenced by the distribution of the events across categories (i.e., the degree of clustering, the age distributions of the sampling populations, and the number of categories with no events occurring in them).

Conclusions

DSRs should not be given when the total observed number of events is less than 10. The Dobson method might be considered the preferred method due to the formulae being simpler than that of the Tiwari method and the coverage being slightly more accurate.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Forman D, Bray F, Brewster DH, Gombe Mbalawa C, Kohler B, Piñeros M, Steliarova-Foucher E, Swaminathan R, Ferlay J. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, Vol. X: IARC; 2014. Forman D, Bray F, Brewster DH, Gombe Mbalawa C, Kohler B, Piñeros M, Steliarova-Foucher E, Swaminathan R, Ferlay J. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, Vol. X: IARC; 2014.
3.
go back to reference Dobson AJ, Kuulasmaa K, Eberle E, Scherer J. Confidence intervals for weighted sums of Poisson parameters. Stat Med. 1991;10:457–62.CrossRef Dobson AJ, Kuulasmaa K, Eberle E, Scherer J. Confidence intervals for weighted sums of Poisson parameters. Stat Med. 1991;10:457–62.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Tiwari RC, Clegg LX, Zou Z. Efficient interval estimation for age-adjusted cancer rates. Stat Methods Med Res. 2006;15:547–69.CrossRef Tiwari RC, Clegg LX, Zou Z. Efficient interval estimation for age-adjusted cancer rates. Stat Methods Med Res. 2006;15:547–69.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Fay MP, Feuer EJ. Confidence intervals for directly standardized rates: a method based on the gamma distribution. Stat Med. 1997;16:791–801.CrossRef Fay MP, Feuer EJ. Confidence intervals for directly standardized rates: a method based on the gamma distribution. Stat Med. 1997;16:791–801.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Consonni D, Coviello E, Buzzoni C, Mensi C. A command to calculate age-standardized rates with efficient interval estimation. Stata J. 2012;(4):688–701. Consonni D, Coviello E, Buzzoni C, Mensi C. A command to calculate age-standardized rates with efficient interval estimation. Stata J. 2012;(4):688–701.
8.
go back to reference Newcombe RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med. 1998;17:857–72.CrossRef Newcombe RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med. 1998;17:857–72.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station: StataCorp LP; 2015. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station: StataCorp LP; 2015.
10.
go back to reference Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Principles on the use of direct age-standardization in administrative data collections: for measuring the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Cat. no. CSI 12. Canberra: AIHW; 2011. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Principles on the use of direct age-standardization in administrative data collections: for measuring the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Cat. no. CSI 12. Canberra: AIHW; 2011.
11.
go back to reference Curtin LR, Klein RJ. Direct standardization (age-adjusted death rates), Statistical Notes, No. 6. March 1995. Hyattsville: US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 1995. Curtin LR, Klein RJ. Direct standardization (age-adjusted death rates), Statistical Notes, No. 6. March 1995. Hyattsville: US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 1995.
14.
go back to reference Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1981. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1981.
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of stability of directly standardized rates for sparse data using simulation methods
Authors
Joan K. Morris
Joachim Tan
Paul Fryers
Jonathan Bestwick
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Population Health Metrics / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1478-7954
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-018-0177-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Population Health Metrics 1/2018 Go to the issue