Absence of Confounding Does Not Correspond to Collapsibility of the Rate Ratio or Rate Difference

Absence of Confounding Does Not Correspond to Collapsibility of the Rate Ratio or Rate Difference Miettinen and Cook (Am J Epidemiol 1981;114:593‐603) showed that absence of confounding does not imply collapsibility of the odds ratio; that is, the crude odds ratio need not equal a common stratum‐specific odds ratio even if the exposed and unexposed study groups have the same distribution of risk factors. Less well known is that absence of confounding does not correspond to collapsibility of the person‐time rate ratio of rate difference. For example, two study groups can have the same distribution of all risk factors and yet the crude rate ratio need not equal a common stratum‐specific rate ratio. The present paper provides an example and explanation of this phenomenon. The discrepancy between nonconfounding and collapsibility in rate comparisons arises when person‐time is a post‐exposure variable whose distribution can be altered by the effects of exposure and other risk factors. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Epidemiology Wolters Kluwer Health

Absence of Confounding Does Not Correspond to Collapsibility of the Rate Ratio or Rate Difference

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wolters_kluwer/absence-of-confounding-does-not-correspond-to-collapsibility-of-the-cROn7qfbZE
Copyright
© 1996 by Epidemiology Resources Inc.
ISSN
1044-3983
eISSN
1531-5487

Abstract

Miettinen and Cook (Am J Epidemiol 1981;114:593‐603) showed that absence of confounding does not imply collapsibility of the odds ratio; that is, the crude odds ratio need not equal a common stratum‐specific odds ratio even if the exposed and unexposed study groups have the same distribution of risk factors. Less well known is that absence of confounding does not correspond to collapsibility of the person‐time rate ratio of rate difference. For example, two study groups can have the same distribution of all risk factors and yet the crude rate ratio need not equal a common stratum‐specific rate ratio. The present paper provides an example and explanation of this phenomenon. The discrepancy between nonconfounding and collapsibility in rate comparisons arises when person‐time is a post‐exposure variable whose distribution can be altered by the effects of exposure and other risk factors.

Journal

EpidemiologyWolters Kluwer Health

Published: Sep 1, 1996

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off