» Articles » PMID: 26228585

Standardized Binomial Models for Risk or Prevalence Ratios and Differences

Overview
Journal Int J Epidemiol
Specialty Public Health
Date 2015 Aug 1
PMID 26228585
Citations 62
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Epidemiologists often analyse binary outcomes in cohort and cross-sectional studies using multivariable logistic regression models, yielding estimates of adjusted odds ratios. It is widely known that the odds ratio closely approximates the risk or prevalence ratio when the outcome is rare, and it does not do so when the outcome is common. Consequently, investigators may decide to directly estimate the risk or prevalence ratio using a log binomial regression model.

Methods: We describe the use of a marginal structural binomial regression model to estimate standardized risk or prevalence ratios and differences. We illustrate the proposed approach using data from a cohort study of coronary heart disease status in Evans County, Georgia, USA.

Results: The approach reduces problems with model convergence typical of log binomial regression by shifting all explanatory variables except the exposures of primary interest from the linear predictor of the outcome regression model to a model for the standardization weights. The approach also facilitates evaluation of departures from additivity in the joint effects of two exposures.

Conclusions: Epidemiologists should consider reporting standardized risk or prevalence ratios and differences in cohort and cross-sectional studies. These are readily-obtained using the SAS, Stata and R statistical software packages. The proposed approach estimates the exposure effect in the total population.

Citing Articles

Paternal age and neonatal outcomes: a population-based cohort study.

Xiong W, Tang X, Han L, Ling L Hum Reprod Open. 2025; 2025(1):hoaf006.

PMID: 40040855 PMC: 11878789. DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoaf006.


Prevalence and determinants of pregnancy termination for childbearing women using the modified Poisson regression model: a cross-sectional study of the Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey (TDHS) 2022.

Mbona S, Chifurira R, Ndlovu B, Ananth A BMC Public Health. 2025; 25(1):56.

PMID: 39773354 PMC: 11706135. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-21203-3.


Occupational injuries and associated factors among sanitary workers in public hospitals, eastern Ethiopia: A modified Poisson regression model analysis.

Tolera S, Gobena T, Assefa N, Geremew A, Toseva E PLoS One. 2024; 19(11):e0310970.

PMID: 39546541 PMC: 11567533. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310970.


A cross-sectional assessment of injection of "salts" and HIV transmission-related behaviours among a cohort of people who inject drugs in Kyrgyzstan.

Kennedy R, Bouck Z, Werb D, Kurmanalieva A, Blyum A, Shumskaya N J Int AIDS Soc. 2024; 27(7):e26247.

PMID: 38978392 PMC: 11231446. DOI: 10.1002/jia2.26247.


Three in four smokers want to quit tobacco (reference to reassessing the smoking target in Japan): findings from the JASTIS2021 study.

Sugihara M, Tabuchi T Environ Health Prev Med. 2024; 29:28.

PMID: 38749723 PMC: 11157245. DOI: 10.1265/ehpm.23-00285.


References
1.
Robins J, Hernan M, Brumback B . Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2000; 11(5):550-60. DOI: 10.1097/00001648-200009000-00011. View

2.
McNutt L, Wu C, Xue X, Hafner J . Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 2003; 157(10):940-3. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwg074. View

3.
Skrondal A . Interaction as departure from additivity in case-control studies: a cautionary note. Am J Epidemiol. 2003; 158(3):251-8. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwg113. View

4.
Hosmer D, Lemeshow S . Confidence interval estimation of interaction. Epidemiology. 1992; 3(5):452-6. DOI: 10.1097/00001648-199209000-00012. View

5.
Sato T, Matsuyama Y . Marginal structural models as a tool for standardization. Epidemiology. 2003; 14(6):680-6. DOI: 10.1097/01.EDE.0000081989.82616.7d. View