Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39100964›Full record

ArticleGlobal epidemiology2024

Adjustment for sparse data bias in odds ratios: Significance to appraisal of risk of diabetes due to occupational trichlorfon insecticide exposure.

Igor Burstyn, David Miller

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Igor BurstynDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
David MillerUS Environmental Protection Agency (Retired), USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Bias away from the null in odds ratios (OR), aggravated by low power, is a well-known phenomenon in statistics (sparse data bias). Such bias increases in presence of selection of "significant" results on the basis of null hypothesis testing (effect size magnification, ESM). Objectives: We seek to illustrate these issues and adjust for suspected sparse data bias in the context of a reported more than doubling of the odds of new onset type 2 diabetes in presence of occupational trichlorfon insecticide exposure reported in the Agricultural Health Study. Methods: We performed ESM analysis on the crude ORs extracted from the contingency table in the published report, which is done by simulating selected OR given a posited true OR. Next, we applied easily accessible methods that adjust for sparse data bias to the extracted contingency tables, including data augmentation, bootstrap, Firth's regression, and Bayesian methods with weakly informative priors. Results: During the ESM analysis, we observed that there was a reasonable chance that a "statistically significant" OR of around 2.5-2.6 would be observed for true OR of 1.2. Adjustment for sparse data bias revealed that Bayesian methods outperformed alternative approaches in terms of yielding more precise inference, while not making unjustified distributional assumptions about estimates of OR. The OR in the original paper of about 2.5-2.6 was reduced on average to OR of 1.9 to 2.2, with 95% (Bayesian) credible intervals that included the null. Discussion: It is reasonable to adjust ORs for sparse data bias when the reported association has societal importance, because policy must be informed by the least biased estimates of the effect. We think that such adjustment would lead to a more appropriate evaluation of the extent of evidence on the contribution of occupational exposure to trichlorfon pesticide to risk of new onset diabetes.

Identifiers

PMID39100964
PMCPMC11295935

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.