Cargando…

Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data

BACKGROUND: Many epidemiologic studies report the odds ratio as a measure of association for cross-sectional studies with common outcomes. In such cases, the prevalence ratios may not be inferred from the estimated odds ratios. This paper overviews the most commonly used procedures to obtain adjuste...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Santos, Carlos Antônio ST, Fiaccone, Rosemeire L, Oliveira, Nelson F, Cunha, Sérgio, Barreto, Maurício L, do Carmo, Maria Beatriz B, Moncayo, Ana-Lucia, Rodrigues, Laura C, Cooper, Philip J, Amorim, Leila D
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19087281
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-80
_version_ 1782163431805157376
author Santos, Carlos Antônio ST
Fiaccone, Rosemeire L
Oliveira, Nelson F
Cunha, Sérgio
Barreto, Maurício L
do Carmo, Maria Beatriz B
Moncayo, Ana-Lucia
Rodrigues, Laura C
Cooper, Philip J
Amorim, Leila D
author_facet Santos, Carlos Antônio ST
Fiaccone, Rosemeire L
Oliveira, Nelson F
Cunha, Sérgio
Barreto, Maurício L
do Carmo, Maria Beatriz B
Moncayo, Ana-Lucia
Rodrigues, Laura C
Cooper, Philip J
Amorim, Leila D
author_sort Santos, Carlos Antônio ST
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Many epidemiologic studies report the odds ratio as a measure of association for cross-sectional studies with common outcomes. In such cases, the prevalence ratios may not be inferred from the estimated odds ratios. This paper overviews the most commonly used procedures to obtain adjusted prevalence ratios and extends the discussion to the analysis of clustered cross-sectional studies. METHODS: Prevalence ratios(PR) were estimated using logistic models with random effects. Their 95% confidence intervals were obtained using delta method and clustered bootstrap. The performance of these approaches was evaluated through simulation studies. Using data from two studies with health-related outcomes in children, we discuss the interpretation of the measures of association and their implications. RESULTS: The results from data analysis highlighted major differences between estimated OR and PR. Results from simulation studies indicate an improved performance of delta method compared to bootstrap when there are small number of clusters. CONCLUSION: We recommend the use of logistic model with random effects for analysis of clustered data. The choice of method to estimate confidence intervals for PR (delta or bootstrap method) should be based on study design.
format Text
id pubmed-2625349
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26253492009-01-14 Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data Santos, Carlos Antônio ST Fiaccone, Rosemeire L Oliveira, Nelson F Cunha, Sérgio Barreto, Maurício L do Carmo, Maria Beatriz B Moncayo, Ana-Lucia Rodrigues, Laura C Cooper, Philip J Amorim, Leila D BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Many epidemiologic studies report the odds ratio as a measure of association for cross-sectional studies with common outcomes. In such cases, the prevalence ratios may not be inferred from the estimated odds ratios. This paper overviews the most commonly used procedures to obtain adjusted prevalence ratios and extends the discussion to the analysis of clustered cross-sectional studies. METHODS: Prevalence ratios(PR) were estimated using logistic models with random effects. Their 95% confidence intervals were obtained using delta method and clustered bootstrap. The performance of these approaches was evaluated through simulation studies. Using data from two studies with health-related outcomes in children, we discuss the interpretation of the measures of association and their implications. RESULTS: The results from data analysis highlighted major differences between estimated OR and PR. Results from simulation studies indicate an improved performance of delta method compared to bootstrap when there are small number of clusters. CONCLUSION: We recommend the use of logistic model with random effects for analysis of clustered data. The choice of method to estimate confidence intervals for PR (delta or bootstrap method) should be based on study design. BioMed Central 2008-12-16 /pmc/articles/PMC2625349/ /pubmed/19087281 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-80 Text en Copyright © 2008 Santos 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
Santos, Carlos Antônio ST
Fiaccone, Rosemeire L
Oliveira, Nelson F
Cunha, Sérgio
Barreto, Maurício L
do Carmo, Maria Beatriz B
Moncayo, Ana-Lucia
Rodrigues, Laura C
Cooper, Philip J
Amorim, Leila D
Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data
title Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data
title_full Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data
title_fullStr Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data
title_full_unstemmed Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data
title_short Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data
title_sort estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19087281
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-80
work_keys_str_mv AT santoscarlosantoniost estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT fiacconerosemeirel estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT oliveiranelsonf estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT cunhasergio estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT barretomauriciol estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT docarmomariabeatrizb estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT moncayoanalucia estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT rodrigueslaurac estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT cooperphilipj estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT amorimleilad estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata