Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27639787›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2017

A Most Odd Ratio:: Interpreting and Describing Odds Ratios.

Alexander Persoskie, Rebecca A Ferrer

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alexander PersoskieOffice of Science, FDA Center for Tobacco Products, Silver Spring, Maryland;. Electronic address: persoskie@gmail.com.
Rebecca A FerrerDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Rockville, Maryland.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe OR is one of the most commonly used measures of association in preventive medicine, and yet it is unintuitive and easily misinterpreted by journal authors and readers.

methodsThis article describes correct interpretations of ORs, explains how ORs are different from risk ratios (RRs), and notes potential supplements and alternatives to the presentation of ORs that may help readers avoid confusion about the strength of associations.

resultsORs are often interpreted as though they have the same meaning as RRs (i.e., ratios of probabilities rather than ratios of odds), an interpretation that is incorrect in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Without knowing the base rate of the outcome event in such analyses, it is impossible to evaluate the size of the absolute or relative change in risk associated with an OR, and misinterpreting the OR as an RR leads to the overestimation of the effect size when the outcome event is common rather than rare in the study sample. In case-control analyses, whether an OR can be interpreted as an RR depends on how the controls were selected.

conclusionsEducation, peer reviewer vigilance, and journal reporting standards concerning ORs may improve the clarity and accuracy with which this common measure of association is described and understood in preventive medicine and public health research.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalOdds RatioBiomedical ResearchHumansPreventive MedicineRisk

Identifiers

PMID27639787
PMCPMC5253299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.