Prevalence Odds Ratio or Prevalence Ratio in the Analysis of Cross Sectional Data: What is to Be Done?

Overview

Journal Occup Environ Med

Specialties Environmental Health
Occupational Medicine

Date 1998 Jun 13

PMID 9624282

Citations 205

Authors

M L Thompson

J E Myers

D Kriebel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To review the appropriateness of the prevalence odds ratio (POR) and the prevalence ratio (PR) as effect measures in the analysis of cross sectional data and to evaluate different models for the multivariate estimation of the PR.

Methods: A system of linear differential equations corresponding to a dynamic model of a cohort with a chronic disease was developed. At any point in time, a cross sectional analysis of the people then in the cohort provided a prevalence based measure of the effect of exposure on disease. This formed the basis for exploring the relations between the POR, the PR, and the incidence rate ratio (IRR). Examples illustrate relations for various IRRs, prevalences, and differential exodus rates. Multivariate point and interval estimation of the PR by logistic regression is illustrated and compared with the results from proportional hazards regression (PH) and generalised linear modelling (GLM).

Results: The POR is difficult to interpret without making restrictive assumptions and the POR and PR may lead to different conclusions with regard to confounding and effect modification. The PR is always conservative relative to the IRR and, if PR > 1, the POR is always > PR. In a fixed cohort and with an adverse exposure, the POR is always > or = IRR, but in a dynamic cohort with sufficient underlying follow up the POR may overestimate or underestimate the IRR, depending on the duration of follow up. Logistic regression models provide point and interval estimates of the PR (and POR) but may be intractable in the presence of many covariates. Proportional hazards and generalised linear models provide statistical methods directed specifically at the PR, but the interval estimation in the case of PH is conservative and the GLM procedure may require constrained estimation.

Conclusions: The PR is conservative, consistent, and interpretable relative to the IRR and should be used in preference to the POR. Multivariate estimation of the PR should be executed by means of generalised linear models or, conservatively, by proportional hazards regression.

Citing Articles

Prevalence of short inter-birth intervals and associated factors among women of reproductive age: evidence from a nationally representative survey in Tanzania.

Minja J, Rweyemamu L, Joho A, Moshi F, Shamba D, Mbotwa C BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025; 25(1):185.

PMID: 39972442 PMC: 11841273. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-024-07026-5.

Spatial analysis and associated risk factors of HIV prevalence in Botswana: insights from the 2021 Botswana AIDS Impact Survey (BAIS V).

Simela S, Kelepile M, Sebobi T BMC Infect Dis. 2025; 25(1):69.

PMID: 39815215 PMC: 11736943. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-025-10464-x.

Postwar nutritional status of lactating mothers: evidence from war-torn Tigray, Ethiopia.

Meles G, Asgedom A, Gebretnsae H, Hidru H, Berhe A, Gebrekidan G J Health Popul Nutr. 2024; 43(1):192.

PMID: 39582052 PMC: 11587538. DOI: 10.1186/s41043-024-00680-7.

Birth Cohort Studies of Long-Term Exposure to Ambient Air Pollution in Early Life and Development of Asthma in Children and Adolescents from Denmark.

Pedersen M, Liu S, Andersen Z, Nybo A, Brandt J, Budtz-Jorgensen E Res Rep Health Eff Inst. 2024; (219):1-63.

PMID: 39469971 PMC: 11525942.

Respiratory Symptoms and Paper Dust Exposure among Workers in the Paper Industry in Ethiopia: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study.

Tafese A, Kumie A, Moen B, Abegaz T, Deressa W, Abaya S Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024; 21(10).

PMID: 39457304 PMC: 11508031. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph21101331.

References

Stromberg U . Prevalence odds ratio v prevalence ratio. Occup Environ Med. 1994; 51(2):143-4. PMC: 1127925. DOI: 10.1136/oem.51.2.143. View

Lee J, Chia K . Estimation of prevalence rate ratios for cross sectional data: an example in occupational epidemiology. Br J Ind Med. 1993; 50(9):861-2. PMC: 1061320. DOI: 10.1136/oem.50.9.861. View

Axelson O, Fredriksson M, Ekberg K . Use of the prevalence ratio v the prevalence odds ratio as a measure of risk in cross sectional studies. Occup Environ Med. 1994; 51(8):574. PMC: 1128040. DOI: 10.1136/oem.51.8.574. View

Axelson O . Some recent developments in occupational epidemiology. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1994; 20 Spec No:9-18. View

Lee J, Chia K . Use of the prevalence ratio v the prevalence odds ratio as a measure of risk in cross sectional studies. Occup Environ Med. 1994; 51(12):841. PMC: 1128127. DOI: 10.1136/oem.51.12.841. View

Stromberg U . Prevalence odds ratio v prevalence ratio--some further comments. Occup Environ Med. 1995; 52(2):143. PMC: 1128170. DOI: 10.1136/oem.52.2.143. View

Hughes K . Odds ratios in cross-sectional studies. Int J Epidemiol. 1995; 24(2):463-4, 468. DOI: 10.1093/ije/24.2.463. View

Osborn J, Cattaruzza M . Odds ratio and relative risk for cross-sectional data. Int J Epidemiol. 1995; 24(2):464-5. DOI: 10.1093/ije/24.2.464. View

Eisen E . Healthy worker effect in morbidity studies. Med Lav. 1995; 86(2):125-38. View

10.

Axelson O, Fredriksson M, Ekberg K . Use of the prevalence ratio v the prevalence odds ratio in view of confounding in cross sectional studies. Occup Environ Med. 1995; 52(7):494. PMC: 1128270. DOI: 10.1136/oem.52.7.494. View

11.

Nurminen M . To use or not to use the odds ratio in epidemiologic analyses?. Eur J Epidemiol. 1995; 11(4):365-71. DOI: 10.1007/BF01721219. View

12.

Zocchetti C, Consonni D, Bertazzi P . Estimation of prevalence rate ratios from cross-sectional data. Int J Epidemiol. 1995; 24(5):1064-7. DOI: 10.1093/ije/24.5.1064. View

13.

Lee J, Chia K . Prevalence odds ratio v prevalence ratio--a response. Occup Environ Med. 1995; 52(11):781-2. PMC: 1128364. DOI: 10.1136/oem.52.11.781-a. View

14.

Nurminen M . On the epidemiologic notion of confounding and confounder identification. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997; 23(1):64-8. View

15.

Zocchetti C, Consonni D, Bertazzi P . Relationship between prevalence rate ratios and odds ratios in cross-sectional studies. Int J Epidemiol. 1997; 26(1):220-3. DOI: 10.1093/ije/26.1.220. View

16.

Breslow N . Covariance analysis of censored survival data. Biometrics. 1974; 30(1):89-99. View

17.

Greenland S . Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. Am J Epidemiol. 1987; 125(5):761-8. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114593. View

18.

Alho J . On prevalence, incidence, and duration in general stable populations. Biometrics. 1992; 48(2):587-92. View

19.

Steineck G, Ahlbom A . A definition of bias founded on the concept of the study base. Epidemiology. 1992; 3(6):477-82. DOI: 10.1097/00001648-199211000-00003. View

20.

Lee J . Odds ratio or relative risk for cross-sectional data?. Int J Epidemiol. 1994; 23(1):201-3. DOI: 10.1093/ije/23.1.201. View