Abstract
AbstractRatio measures of effect, such as the odds ratio (OR), are consistent, but the presumption of their unbiasedness is founded on a false premise: The equality of the expected value of a ratio and the ratio of expected values. We show that the invalidity of this assumptions is an important source of empirical bias in ratio measures of effect, which is due to properties of the expectation of ratios of count random variables. We investigate ORs (unconfounded, no effect modification), proposing a correction that leads to “almost unbiased” estimates. We also explore ORs with covariates. We find substantial bias in OR estimates for smaller sample sizes, which can be corrected by the proposed method. Bias correction is more elusive for adjusted analyses. The notion of unbiasedness of OR for the effect of interest for smaller sample sizes is challenged.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Reference7 articles.
1. Casella, G. and R.L. Berger (1990). Statistical Inference. Duxbury advanced series. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
2. Chapman, Douglas G (1952). “On tests and estimates for the ratio of Poisson means”. In: Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics 4.1, pp. 45–49.
3. On the combination of relative risks;Biometrics,1962
4. On the need for the rare disease assumption in case-control studies;American journal of epidemiology,1982
5. Griffin, Tralissa F (1992). “Distribution of the ratio of two poisson random variables”. MA thesis.