Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33914563›Full record

ArticlePsychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors2022

Making sense of some odd ratios: A tutorial and improvements to present practices in reporting and visualizing quantities of interest for binary and count outcome models.

Max A Halvorson, Connor J McCabe, Dale S Kim, Xiaolin Cao, Kevin M King

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Quality of Life of People with Mobility-Related Disabilities in Sweden: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

5 authors.

Max A HalvorsonDepartment of Psychology.ORCID 0000-0002-3113-2458
Connor J McCabeDepartment of Psychiatry.ORCID 0000-0003-1868-8459
Dale S KimDepartment of Statistics.ORCID 0000-0002-5365-3748
Xiaolin CaoDepartment of Statistics.
Kevin M KingDepartment of Psychology.ORCID 0000-0001-8358-9946

Funding

Alcohol Research in the Science/Practitioner ModelT32AA013525 · NIAAA · SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI EDWARD P RILEY, ANDREA SPADONI TOWNSEND · 2002 to 2026
$8.4M
Ecological Momentary Assessment of Negative Urgency's Effects on Alcohol and Marijuana MisuseR01DA047247 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI KING, KEVIN MICHAEL · 2019 to 2023
$2.9M
Passive mobile sensing and machine learning for the detection of drinking episodesK02AA028832 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI KING, KEVIN MICHAEL · 2021 to 2025
$725k
Characterizing the Role of Avoidant Coping in the Development of Drinking to Cope with Negative EmotionsF31AA027118 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI HALVORSON, MAX A · 2018 to 2020
$117k
National Institutes of Health; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismNIAAA NIH HHS F31 AA027118NIAAA NIH HHS K02 AA028832NIAAA NIH HHS T32 AA013525NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA047247
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveGeneralized linear models (GLMs) such as logistic and Poisson regression are among the most common statistical methods for modeling binary and count outcomes. Though single-coefficient tests (odds ratios, incidence rate ratios) are the most common way to test predictor-outcome relations in these models, they provide limited information on the magnitude and nature of relations with outcomes. We assert that this is largely because they do not describe direct relations with quantities of interest (QoIs) such as probabilities and counts. Shifting focus to QoIs makes several critical nuances of GLMs more apparent.

methodTo bolster interpretability of these models, we provide a tutorial on logistic and Poisson regression and suggestions for enhancements to current reporting practices for predictor-outcome relations in GLMs.

resultsWe first highlight differences in interpretation between traditional linear models and GLMs, and describe common misconceptions about GLMs. In particular, we highlight that link functions (a) introduce nonconstant relations between predictors and outcomes and (b) make predictor-QoI relations dependent on levels of other covariates. Each of these properties causes interpretation of GLM coefficients to diverge from interpretations of linear models. Next, we argue for a more central focus on QoIs (probabilities and counts). Finally, we propose and provide graphics and tables, with sample R code, for enhancing presentation and interpretation of QoIs.

conclusionsBy improving present practices in the reporting of predictor-outcome relations in GLMs, we hope to maximize the amount of actionable information generated by statistical analyses and provide a tool for building a cumulative science of substance use disorders. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalResearch DesignHumansIncidenceLinear ModelsOdds Ratio

Identifiers

PMID33914563
PMCPMC8553813
OpenAlexW3157903541

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.