Relative Risk Estimation in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Comparison of Methods for Independent Observations

IF 1.2 4区 数学 International Journal of Biostatistics Pub Date : 2011-01-06 DOI:10.2202/1557-4679.1278
L. Yelland, A. Salter, Philip Ryan
{"title":"Relative Risk Estimation in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Comparison of Methods for Independent Observations","authors":"L. Yelland, A. Salter, Philip Ryan","doi":"10.2202/1557-4679.1278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The relative risk is a clinically important measure of the effect of treatment on binary outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An adjusted relative risk can be estimated using log binomial regression; however, convergence problems are common with this model. While alternative methods have been proposed for estimating relative risks, comparisons between methods have been limited, particularly in the context of RCTs. We compare ten different methods for estimating relative risks under a variety of scenarios relevant to RCTs with independent observations. Results of a large simulation study show that some methods may fail to overcome the convergence problems of log binomial regression, while others may substantially overestimate the treatment effect or produce inaccurate confidence intervals. Further, conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment may differ depending on the method used. We give recommendations for choosing a method for estimating relative risks in the context of RCTs with independent observations.","PeriodicalId":50333,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Biostatistics","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1557-4679.1278","citationCount":"38","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Biostatistics","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1557-4679.1278","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38

Abstract

The relative risk is a clinically important measure of the effect of treatment on binary outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An adjusted relative risk can be estimated using log binomial regression; however, convergence problems are common with this model. While alternative methods have been proposed for estimating relative risks, comparisons between methods have been limited, particularly in the context of RCTs. We compare ten different methods for estimating relative risks under a variety of scenarios relevant to RCTs with independent observations. Results of a large simulation study show that some methods may fail to overcome the convergence problems of log binomial regression, while others may substantially overestimate the treatment effect or produce inaccurate confidence intervals. Further, conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment may differ depending on the method used. We give recommendations for choosing a method for estimating relative risks in the context of RCTs with independent observations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
随机对照试验的相对风险估计:独立观察方法的比较
在随机对照试验(rct)中,相对危险度是衡量治疗对二元结局影响的重要临床指标。调整后的相对风险可用对数二项回归估计;然而,该模型的收敛性问题是常见的。虽然已经提出了估算相对风险的替代方法,但方法之间的比较有限,特别是在随机对照试验的背景下。我们比较了十种不同的方法来估计相对风险在各种情况下与独立观察的随机对照试验相关。一项大型模拟研究的结果表明,一些方法可能无法克服对数二项回归的收敛问题,而另一些方法可能严重高估处理效果或产生不准确的置信区间。此外,关于治疗有效性的结论可能因使用的方法而异。我们建议在独立观察的随机对照试验中选择一种估计相对风险的方法。
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 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Biostatistics
International Journal of Biostatistics Mathematics-Statistics and Probability
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Biostatistics (IJB) seeks to publish new biostatistical models and methods, new statistical theory, as well as original applications of statistical methods, for important practical problems arising from the biological, medical, public health, and agricultural sciences with an emphasis on semiparametric methods. Given many alternatives to publish exist within biostatistics, IJB offers a place to publish for research in biostatistics focusing on modern methods, often based on machine-learning and other data-adaptive methodologies, as well as providing a unique reading experience that compels the author to be explicit about the statistical inference problem addressed by the paper. IJB is intended that the journal cover the entire range of biostatistics, from theoretical advances to relevant and sensible translations of a practical problem into a statistical framework. Electronic publication also allows for data and software code to be appended, and opens the door for reproducible research allowing readers to easily replicate analyses described in a paper. Both original research and review articles will be warmly received, as will articles applying sound statistical methods to practical problems.
期刊最新文献
Hypothesis testing for detecting outlier evaluators. Optimizing personalized treatments for targeted patient populations across multiple domains. History-restricted marginal structural model and latent class growth analysis of treatment trajectories for a time-dependent outcome. Hybrid classical-Bayesian approach to sample size determination for two-arm superiority clinical trials. An interpretable cluster-based logistic regression model, with application to the characterization of response to therapy in severe eosinophilic asthma.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1