Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

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

Epidemiology , Volume 7 (5) – Sep 1, 1996

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.