Cargando…

Evaluation of exposure-specific risks from two independent samples: A simulation study

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have proposed a simple product-based estimator for calculating exposure-specific risks (ESR), but the methodology has not been rigorously evaluated. The goal of our study was to evaluate the existing methodology for calculating the ESR, propose an improved point estimato...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Reichmann, William M, Gagnon, David, Horsburgh, C Robert, Losina, Elena
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3022898/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21208427
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-1
_version_ 1782196613294325760
author Reichmann, William M
Gagnon, David
Horsburgh, C Robert
Losina, Elena
author_facet Reichmann, William M
Gagnon, David
Horsburgh, C Robert
Losina, Elena
author_sort Reichmann, William M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Previous studies have proposed a simple product-based estimator for calculating exposure-specific risks (ESR), but the methodology has not been rigorously evaluated. The goal of our study was to evaluate the existing methodology for calculating the ESR, propose an improved point estimator, and propose variance estimates that will allow the calculation of confidence intervals (CIs). METHODS: We conducted a simulation study to test the performance of two estimators and their associated confidence intervals: 1) current (simple product-based estimator) and 2) proposed revision (revised product-based estimator). The first method for ESR estimation was based on multiplying a relative risk (RR) of disease given a certain exposure by an overall risk of disease. The second method, which is proposed in this paper, was based on estimates of the risk of disease in the unexposed. We then multiply the updated risk by the RR to get the revised product-based estimator. A log-based variance was calculated for both estimators. Also, a binomial-based variance was calculated for the revised product-based estimator. 95% CIs were calculated based on these variance estimates. Accuracy of point estimators was evaluated by comparing observed relative bias (percent deviation from the true estimate). Interval estimators were evaluated by coverage probabilities and expected length of the 95% CI, given coverage. We evaluated these estimators across a wide range of exposure probabilities, disease probabilities, relative risks, and sample sizes. RESULTS: We observed more bias and lower coverage probability when using the existing methodology. The revised product-based point estimator exhibited little observed relative bias (max: 4.0%) compared to the simple product-based estimator (max: 93.9%). Because the simple product-based estimator was biased, 95% CIs around this estimate exhibited small coverage probabilities. The 95% CI around the revised product-based estimator from the log-based variance provided better coverage in most situations. CONCLUSION: The currently accepted simple product-based method was only a reasonable approach when the exposure probability is small (< 0.05) and the RR is ≤ 3.0. The revised product-based estimator provides much improved accuracy.
format Text
id pubmed-3022898
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30228982011-01-20 Evaluation of exposure-specific risks from two independent samples: A simulation study Reichmann, William M Gagnon, David Horsburgh, C Robert Losina, Elena BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Previous studies have proposed a simple product-based estimator for calculating exposure-specific risks (ESR), but the methodology has not been rigorously evaluated. The goal of our study was to evaluate the existing methodology for calculating the ESR, propose an improved point estimator, and propose variance estimates that will allow the calculation of confidence intervals (CIs). METHODS: We conducted a simulation study to test the performance of two estimators and their associated confidence intervals: 1) current (simple product-based estimator) and 2) proposed revision (revised product-based estimator). The first method for ESR estimation was based on multiplying a relative risk (RR) of disease given a certain exposure by an overall risk of disease. The second method, which is proposed in this paper, was based on estimates of the risk of disease in the unexposed. We then multiply the updated risk by the RR to get the revised product-based estimator. A log-based variance was calculated for both estimators. Also, a binomial-based variance was calculated for the revised product-based estimator. 95% CIs were calculated based on these variance estimates. Accuracy of point estimators was evaluated by comparing observed relative bias (percent deviation from the true estimate). Interval estimators were evaluated by coverage probabilities and expected length of the 95% CI, given coverage. We evaluated these estimators across a wide range of exposure probabilities, disease probabilities, relative risks, and sample sizes. RESULTS: We observed more bias and lower coverage probability when using the existing methodology. The revised product-based point estimator exhibited little observed relative bias (max: 4.0%) compared to the simple product-based estimator (max: 93.9%). Because the simple product-based estimator was biased, 95% CIs around this estimate exhibited small coverage probabilities. The 95% CI around the revised product-based estimator from the log-based variance provided better coverage in most situations. CONCLUSION: The currently accepted simple product-based method was only a reasonable approach when the exposure probability is small (< 0.05) and the RR is ≤ 3.0. The revised product-based estimator provides much improved accuracy. BioMed Central 2011-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC3022898/ /pubmed/21208427 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-1 Text en Copyright ©2011 Reichmann et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (<url>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0</url>), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Reichmann, William M
Gagnon, David
Horsburgh, C Robert
Losina, Elena
Evaluation of exposure-specific risks from two independent samples: A simulation study
title Evaluation of exposure-specific risks from two independent samples: A simulation study
title_full Evaluation of exposure-specific risks from two independent samples: A simulation study
title_fullStr Evaluation of exposure-specific risks from two independent samples: A simulation study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of exposure-specific risks from two independent samples: A simulation study
title_short Evaluation of exposure-specific risks from two independent samples: A simulation study
title_sort evaluation of exposure-specific risks from two independent samples: a simulation study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3022898/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21208427
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-1
work_keys_str_mv AT reichmannwilliamm evaluationofexposurespecificrisksfromtwoindependentsamplesasimulationstudy
AT gagnondavid evaluationofexposurespecificrisksfromtwoindependentsamplesasimulationstudy
AT horsburghcrobert evaluationofexposurespecificrisksfromtwoindependentsamplesasimulationstudy
AT losinaelena evaluationofexposurespecificrisksfromtwoindependentsamplesasimulationstudy