ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022
Estimating risk ratio from any standard epidemiological design by doubling the cases.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpreting relative risks and odds ratios after propensity score matching: practical guidance for clinical research.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Combining magnetic resonance imaging with a multi-ancestry polygenic risk score to improve identification of clinically significant prostate cancer.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- Association between long-term exposure to PMFrontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the ease of interpretation and communication of a risk ratio (RR), and several other advantages in specific settings, the odds ratio (OR) is more commonly reported in epidemiological and clinical research. This is due to the familiarity of the logistic regression model for estimating adjusted ORs from data gathered in a cross-sectional, cohort or case-control design. The preservation of the OR (but not RR) in case-control samples has contributed to the perception that it is the only valid measure of relative risk from case-control samples. For cohort or cross-sectional data, a method known as 'doubling-the-cases' provides valid estimates of RR and an expression for a robust standard error has been derived, but is not available in statistical software packages.
methodsIn this paper, we first describe the doubling-of-cases approach in the cohort setting and then extend its application to case-control studies by incorporating sampling weights and deriving an expression for a robust standard error. The performance of the estimator is evaluated using simulated data, and its application illustrated in a study of neonatal jaundice. We provide an R package that implements the method for any standard design.
resultsOur work illustrates that the doubling-of-cases approach for estimating an adjusted RR from cross-sectional or cohort data can also yield valid RR estimates from case-control data. The approach is straightforward to apply, involving simple modification of the data followed by logistic regression analysis. The method performed well for case-control data from simulated cohorts with a range of prevalence rates. In the application to neonatal jaundice, the RR estimates were similar to those from relative risk regression, whereas the OR from naive logistic regression overestimated the RR despite the low prevalence of the outcome.
conclusionsBy providing an R package that estimates an adjusted RR from cohort, cross-sectional or case-control studies, we have enabled the method to be easily implemented with familiar software, so that investigators are not limited to reporting an OR and can examine the RR when it is of interest.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.