A distributional approach to obtain adjusted comparisons of proportions of a population at risk.

IF 3.6 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology Pub Date : 2016-06-07 eCollection Date: 2016-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s12982-016-0050-2
Odile Sauzet, Jürgen Breckenkamp, Theda Borde, Silke Brenne, Matthias David, Oliver Razum, Janet L Peacock
{"title":"A distributional approach to obtain adjusted comparisons of proportions of a population at risk.","authors":"Odile Sauzet,&nbsp;Jürgen Breckenkamp,&nbsp;Theda Borde,&nbsp;Silke Brenne,&nbsp;Matthias David,&nbsp;Oliver Razum,&nbsp;Janet L Peacock","doi":"10.1186/s12982-016-0050-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dichotomisation of continuous data has statistical drawbacks such as loss of power but may be useful in epidemiological research to define high risk individuals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We extend a methodology for the presentation of comparison of proportions derived from a comparison of means for a continuous outcome to reflect the relationship between a continuous outcome and covariates in a linear (mixed) model without losing statistical power. The so called \"distributional method\" is described and using perinatal data for illustration, results from the distributional method are compared to those of logistic regression and to quantile regression for three different outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Estimates obtained using the distributional method for the comparison of proportions are consistently more precise than those obtained using logistic regression. For one of the three outcomes the estimates obtained from the distributional method and from logistic regression disagreed highlighting that the relationships between outcome and covariate differ conceptually between the two models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When an outcome follows the required condition of distribution shift between exposure groups, the results of a linear regression model can be followed by the corresponding comparison of proportions at risk. This dual approach provides more precise estimates than logistic regression thus avoiding the drawback of the usual dichotomisation of continuous outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":39896,"journal":{"name":"Emerging Themes in Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s12982-016-0050-2","citationCount":"19","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emerging Themes in Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-016-0050-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

Abstract

Background: Dichotomisation of continuous data has statistical drawbacks such as loss of power but may be useful in epidemiological research to define high risk individuals.

Methods: We extend a methodology for the presentation of comparison of proportions derived from a comparison of means for a continuous outcome to reflect the relationship between a continuous outcome and covariates in a linear (mixed) model without losing statistical power. The so called "distributional method" is described and using perinatal data for illustration, results from the distributional method are compared to those of logistic regression and to quantile regression for three different outcomes.

Results: Estimates obtained using the distributional method for the comparison of proportions are consistently more precise than those obtained using logistic regression. For one of the three outcomes the estimates obtained from the distributional method and from logistic regression disagreed highlighting that the relationships between outcome and covariate differ conceptually between the two models.

Conclusion: When an outcome follows the required condition of distribution shift between exposure groups, the results of a linear regression model can be followed by the corresponding comparison of proportions at risk. This dual approach provides more precise estimates than logistic regression thus avoiding the drawback of the usual dichotomisation of continuous outcomes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

一种分布方法,用于获得处于危险中的人口比例的调整比较。
背景:连续数据的二分类在统计上有缺陷,如失去效力,但在流行病学研究中可能对定义高风险个体有用。方法:我们扩展了一种方法,用于表示从连续结果的均值比较中得出的比例比较,以反映线性(混合)模型中连续结果和协变量之间的关系,而不会失去统计能力。本文描述了所谓的“分布方法”,并使用围产期数据进行说明,将分布方法的结果与逻辑回归和三种不同结果的分位数回归的结果进行比较。结果:使用分布方法获得的比例比较估计值始终比使用逻辑回归获得的估计值更精确。对于三个结果中的一个,从分布方法和逻辑回归获得的估计不一致,突出表明两个模型之间的结果和协变量之间的关系在概念上不同。结论:当某一结果符合暴露组间分布转移的要求条件时,可以根据线性回归模型的结果进行相应的风险比例比较。这种双重方法提供了比逻辑回归更精确的估计,从而避免了通常的连续结果二分类的缺点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology Medicine-Epidemiology
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
9
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: Emerging Themes in Epidemiology is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to promote debate and discussion on practical and theoretical aspects of epidemiology. Combining statistical approaches with an understanding of the biology of disease, epidemiologists seek to elucidate the social, environmental and host factors related to adverse health outcomes. Although research findings from epidemiologic studies abound in traditional public health journals, little publication space is devoted to discussion of the practical and theoretical concepts that underpin them. Because of its immediate impact on public health, an openly accessible forum is needed in the field of epidemiology to foster such discussion.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信