Cargando…

A comparison of two methods for estimating odds ratios: Results from the National Health Survey

BACKGROUND: The practice of dichotomizing a continuous outcome variable does not make use of within-category information. That means the loss of information. This study compared two approaches in the modelling of the association between sociodemographic and smoking with obesity in adult women in Ira...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bakhshi, Enayatollah, Eshraghian, Mohammad R, Mohammad, Kazem, Seifi, Behjat
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2613917/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19032774
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-78
_version_ 1782163211429085184
author Bakhshi, Enayatollah
Eshraghian, Mohammad R
Mohammad, Kazem
Seifi, Behjat
author_facet Bakhshi, Enayatollah
Eshraghian, Mohammad R
Mohammad, Kazem
Seifi, Behjat
author_sort Bakhshi, Enayatollah
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The practice of dichotomizing a continuous outcome variable does not make use of within-category information. That means the loss of information. This study compared two approaches in the modelling of the association between sociodemographic and smoking with obesity in adult women in Iran. METHODS: We conducted a comparative study between two methods via an illustrative example, using data from the "National Health Survey in Iran (NHSI)" database. It included 14176 women aged 20–69 years. At first, body mass index(BMI) was treated as a continuous variable, OR(s )and 95 per cent confidence intervals were calculated using the "without dichotomizing" method. Then subjects were classified into obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) and nonobese (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)) and logistic regression model was used to estimate OR(s )and 95 per cent confidence intervals. RESULTS: The odds ratio estimates changed only slightly over the two methods. But the "without dichotomizing" method provided shorter confidence intervals on the odds ratio parameters than dichotomizing method. All relative confidence interval lengths were greater than 1.15. CONCLUSION: If responses are continuous then the "without dichotomizing" method is certainly more useful than the "dichotomizing" method and leads to more precise estimation of odds ratios.
format Text
id pubmed-2613917
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26139172009-01-12 A comparison of two methods for estimating odds ratios: Results from the National Health Survey Bakhshi, Enayatollah Eshraghian, Mohammad R Mohammad, Kazem Seifi, Behjat BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: The practice of dichotomizing a continuous outcome variable does not make use of within-category information. That means the loss of information. This study compared two approaches in the modelling of the association between sociodemographic and smoking with obesity in adult women in Iran. METHODS: We conducted a comparative study between two methods via an illustrative example, using data from the "National Health Survey in Iran (NHSI)" database. It included 14176 women aged 20–69 years. At first, body mass index(BMI) was treated as a continuous variable, OR(s )and 95 per cent confidence intervals were calculated using the "without dichotomizing" method. Then subjects were classified into obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) and nonobese (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)) and logistic regression model was used to estimate OR(s )and 95 per cent confidence intervals. RESULTS: The odds ratio estimates changed only slightly over the two methods. But the "without dichotomizing" method provided shorter confidence intervals on the odds ratio parameters than dichotomizing method. All relative confidence interval lengths were greater than 1.15. CONCLUSION: If responses are continuous then the "without dichotomizing" method is certainly more useful than the "dichotomizing" method and leads to more precise estimation of odds ratios. BioMed Central 2008-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC2613917/ /pubmed/19032774 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-78 Text en Copyright © 2008 Bakhshi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bakhshi, Enayatollah
Eshraghian, Mohammad R
Mohammad, Kazem
Seifi, Behjat
A comparison of two methods for estimating odds ratios: Results from the National Health Survey
title A comparison of two methods for estimating odds ratios: Results from the National Health Survey
title_full A comparison of two methods for estimating odds ratios: Results from the National Health Survey
title_fullStr A comparison of two methods for estimating odds ratios: Results from the National Health Survey
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of two methods for estimating odds ratios: Results from the National Health Survey
title_short A comparison of two methods for estimating odds ratios: Results from the National Health Survey
title_sort comparison of two methods for estimating odds ratios: results from the national health survey
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2613917/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19032774
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-78
work_keys_str_mv AT bakhshienayatollah acomparisonoftwomethodsforestimatingoddsratiosresultsfromthenationalhealthsurvey
AT eshraghianmohammadr acomparisonoftwomethodsforestimatingoddsratiosresultsfromthenationalhealthsurvey
AT mohammadkazem acomparisonoftwomethodsforestimatingoddsratiosresultsfromthenationalhealthsurvey
AT seifibehjat acomparisonoftwomethodsforestimatingoddsratiosresultsfromthenationalhealthsurvey
AT bakhshienayatollah comparisonoftwomethodsforestimatingoddsratiosresultsfromthenationalhealthsurvey
AT eshraghianmohammadr comparisonoftwomethodsforestimatingoddsratiosresultsfromthenationalhealthsurvey
AT mohammadkazem comparisonoftwomethodsforestimatingoddsratiosresultsfromthenationalhealthsurvey
AT seifibehjat comparisonoftwomethodsforestimatingoddsratiosresultsfromthenationalhealthsurvey