ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
You have guest access to ScienceDirect. Find out more.
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields    
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 98, Issue 4, October 2001, Pages 685-688
 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
 Abstract - selected

 
 
 
Related Articles in ScienceDirect
View More Related Articles
 
View Record in Scopus
 
doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01488-0    How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)
Copyright © 2001 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Elsevier Science Inc.

An odd measure of risk: use and misuse of the odds ratio

William L. Holcomb, Jr MDCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, a, Tinnakorn Chaiworapongsa MDa, Douglas A. Luke PhDa and Kevin D. Burgdorfa

a Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women’s Health, St. Louis University School of Medicine, and School of Public Health, St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Received 2 January 2001;
revised 2 May 2001 and 31 May 2001.
Available online 21 September 2001.

This article is not included in your organization's subscription. However, you may be able to access this article under your organization's agreement with Elsevier.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To determine how often the odds ratio, as used in clinical research of obstetrics and gynecology, differs substantially from the risk ratio estimate and to assess whether the difference in these measures leads to misinterpretation of research results.

METHODS:

Articles from 1998 through 1999 in Obstetrics & Gynecology and the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology were searched for the term “odds ratio.” The key odds ratio in each article was identified, and, when possible, an estimated risk ratio was calculated. The odds ratios and the estimated risk ratios were compared quantitatively and graphically.

RESULTS:

Of 151 studies using odds ratios, 107 were suitable to estimate a risk ratio. The difference between the odds ratio and the estimated risk ratio was greater than 20% in 47 (44%) of these articles. An odds ratio appears to magnify an effect compared with a risk ratio. In 39 (26%) articles the odds ratio was interpreted as a risk ratio without explicit justification.

CONCLUSION:

The odds ratio is frequently used, and often misinterpreted, in the current literature of obstetrics and gynecology.

Article Outline

• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• References



Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 98, Issue 4, October 2001, Pages 685-688
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.