Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2004; 43(05): 505-509
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1633907
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Different Methods to Calculate Effect Estimates in Cross-sectional Studies

A Comparison between Prevalence Odds Ratio and Prevalence Ratio
T. Behrens
1   Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
2   Bremen Institute of Prevention Research and Social Medicine (BIPS), University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
,
D. Taeger
1   Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
3   Berufsgenossenschaftliches Forschungsinstitut für Arbeitsmedizin (BGFA), Institute of the Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
,
J. Wellmann
1   Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
,
U. Keil
1   Institute of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: According to results from the epidemiological literature, it can be expected that the prevalence odds ratio (POR) and the prevalence ratio (PR) differ with increasing disease prevalence. We illustrate different concepts to calculate these effect measures in cross-sectional studies and discuss their advantages and weaknesses, using actual data from the ISAAC Phase III cross-sectional survey in Münster, Germany.

Methods: We analyzed data on the association between self-reported traffic density and wheeze and asthma by means of the POR, obtained from a logistic regression, and the PR, which was estimated from a log-linear binomial model and from different variants of a Poisson regression.

Results: The analysis based on the less frequent disease, i.e. asthma with an overall prevalence of 7.8%, yielded similar results for all estimates. When wheezing with a prevalence of 17.5% was analyzed, the POR produced the highest estimates with the widest confidence intervals. While the point estimates were similar in the log-binomial model and Poisson regression, the latter showed wider confidence intervals. When we calculated the Poisson regression with robust variances, confidence intervals narrowed.

Conclusions: Since cross-sectional studies often deal with frequent diseases, we encourage analyzing cross-sectional data based on log-linear binomial models, which is the ‘natural method’ for estimating prevalence ratios. If algorithms fail to converge, a useful alternative is to define appropriate starting values or, if models still do not converge, to calculate a Poisson regression with robust estimates to control for overestimation of errors in the binomial data.

Keywords

Cross-sectional studies - generalized linear model - Poisson regression - prevalence odds ratio - prevalence ratio
 

  • References

  • 1 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 (Letter). Occup Environ Med 1994; 51: 574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lee J, Chia KS. Estimation of prevalence rate ratios for cross sectional data: an example in occupational epidemiology (Letter). Br J Ind Med 1993; 50: 861-2.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Osborn J, Cattaruzza MS. Odds ratio and relative risk for cross-sectional data (Letter). Int J Epidemiol 1995; 24: 464-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Zocchetti C, Consonni D, Bertazzi PA. Relationship between prevalence rate ratios and odds ratios in cross-sectional studies. Int J Epidemiol 1997; 26: 220-3.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Miettinen O. Estimability and estimation in case-referent studies. Am J Epidemiol 1976; 103: 226-35.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Thompson ML, Myers JE, Kriebel D. Prevalence odds ratio or prevalence ratio in the analysis of cross sectional data: what is to be done?. Occup Environ Med 1998; 55: 272-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hughes K. Odds ratios in cross-sectional studies (Letter). Int J Epidemiol 1995; 24: 463-4. 468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Skov T, Deddens J, Petersen MR, Endahl L. Prevalence proportion ratios: estimation and hypothesis testing. Int J Epidemiol 1998; 27: 91-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Davies HT, Crombie IK, Tavakoli M. When can odds ratios mislead?. BMJ 1998; 316: 989-91.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 McNutt LA, Wu C, Xue X, Hafner JP. Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 157: 940-3.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Barros AJ, Hirakata VN. Alternatives for logistic regression in cross-sectional studies: an empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the prevalence ratio. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Martuzzi M, Elliott P. Estimating the incidence rate ratio in cross-sectional studies using a simple alternative to logistic regression. Ann Epidemiol 1998; 8: 2-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Zhang J, Yu KF. What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA 1998; 280: 1690-1.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Behrens T, Taeger D, Maziak W, Duhme H, Rzehak P, Weiland SK, Keil U. Self-reported traffic density and atopic disease in children. Results of the ISAAC Phase III survey in Muenster, Germany. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2004; 15: 331-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Asher MI, Keil U, Anderson HR, Beasley R, Crane J, Martinez F, Mitchell EA, Pearce N, Sibbald B, Stewart AW, Strachan D, Weiland SK, Williams HC. International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC): rationale and methods. Eur Respir J 1995; 8: 83-1.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Maziak W, Behrens T, Brasky TM, Duhme H, Rzehak P, Weiland SK, Keil U. Are asthma and allergies in children and adolescents increasing? Results from ISAAC phase I and phase III surveys in Munster, Germany. Allergy 2003; 58: 572-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Breslow N. Covariance analysis of censored survival data. Biometrics 1974; 30: 89-99.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Clayton D, Hills M. Statistical Models in Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press Inc; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Zocchetti C, Consonni D, Bertazzi PA. Estimation of prevalence rate ratios from cross-sectional data (Letter). Int J Epidemiol 1995; 24 (05) 1064-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Walter SD. Choice of effect measure for epidemiological data. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 931-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness?. Ann Intern Med 1992; 117: 916-21.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Nexoe J, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kragstrup J, Kristiansen IS, Nielsen JB. Danish GPs’ perception of disease risk and benefit of prevention. Fam Pract 2002; 19: 3-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) Steering Committee. Worldwide variation in prevalence of symptoms of asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and atopic eczema: ISAAC. Lancet 1998; 351: 1225-32.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wacholder S. Binomial regression in GLIM: estimating risk ratios and risk differences. Am J Epidemiol 1986; 123: 174-84.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar