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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |