Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many epidemiologic studies report the odds ratio as a measure of association for cross-sectional studies with common outcomes. In such cases, the prevalence ratios may not be inferred from the estimated odds ratios. This paper overvi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Moncayo Ana-Lucia, do Carmo Maria, Barreto Maurício L, Cunha Sérgio, Oliveira Nelson F, Fiaccone Rosemeire L, Santos Carlos, Rodrigues Laura C, Cooper Philip J, Amorim Leila D
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2008-12-01
Series:BMC Medical Research Methodology
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/8/80
id doaj-c444a21875504cbba7648b1791f06038
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c444a21875504cbba7648b1791f060382020-11-24T21:47:08ZengBMCBMC Medical Research Methodology1471-22882008-12-01818010.1186/1471-2288-8-80Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological dataMoncayo Ana-Luciado Carmo MariaBarreto Maurício LCunha SérgioOliveira Nelson FFiaccone Rosemeire LSantos CarlosRodrigues Laura CCooper Philip JAmorim Leila D<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many epidemiologic studies report the odds ratio as a measure of association for cross-sectional studies with common outcomes. In such cases, the prevalence ratios may not be inferred from the estimated odds ratios. This paper overviews the most commonly used procedures to obtain adjusted prevalence ratios and extends the discussion to the analysis of clustered cross-sectional studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Prevalence ratios(PR) were estimated using logistic models with random effects. Their 95% confidence intervals were obtained using delta method and clustered bootstrap. The performance of these approaches was evaluated through simulation studies. Using data from two studies with health-related outcomes in children, we discuss the interpretation of the measures of association and their implications.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The results from data analysis highlighted major differences between estimated OR and PR. Results from simulation studies indicate an improved performance of delta method compared to bootstrap when there are small number of clusters.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We recommend the use of logistic model with random effects for analysis of clustered data. The choice of method to estimate confidence intervals for PR (delta or bootstrap method) should be based on study design.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/8/80
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Moncayo Ana-Lucia
do Carmo Maria
Barreto Maurício L
Cunha Sérgio
Oliveira Nelson F
Fiaccone Rosemeire L
Santos Carlos
Rodrigues Laura C
Cooper Philip J
Amorim Leila D
spellingShingle Moncayo Ana-Lucia
do Carmo Maria
Barreto Maurício L
Cunha Sérgio
Oliveira Nelson F
Fiaccone Rosemeire L
Santos Carlos
Rodrigues Laura C
Cooper Philip J
Amorim Leila D
Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data
BMC Medical Research Methodology
author_facet Moncayo Ana-Lucia
do Carmo Maria
Barreto Maurício L
Cunha Sérgio
Oliveira Nelson F
Fiaccone Rosemeire L
Santos Carlos
Rodrigues Laura C
Cooper Philip J
Amorim Leila D
author_sort Moncayo Ana-Lucia
title Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data
title_short Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data
title_full Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data
title_fullStr Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data
title_full_unstemmed Estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data
title_sort estimating adjusted prevalence ratio in clustered cross-sectional epidemiological data
publisher BMC
series BMC Medical Research Methodology
issn 1471-2288
publishDate 2008-12-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many epidemiologic studies report the odds ratio as a measure of association for cross-sectional studies with common outcomes. In such cases, the prevalence ratios may not be inferred from the estimated odds ratios. This paper overviews the most commonly used procedures to obtain adjusted prevalence ratios and extends the discussion to the analysis of clustered cross-sectional studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Prevalence ratios(PR) were estimated using logistic models with random effects. Their 95% confidence intervals were obtained using delta method and clustered bootstrap. The performance of these approaches was evaluated through simulation studies. Using data from two studies with health-related outcomes in children, we discuss the interpretation of the measures of association and their implications.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The results from data analysis highlighted major differences between estimated OR and PR. Results from simulation studies indicate an improved performance of delta method compared to bootstrap when there are small number of clusters.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We recommend the use of logistic model with random effects for analysis of clustered data. The choice of method to estimate confidence intervals for PR (delta or bootstrap method) should be based on study design.</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/8/80
work_keys_str_mv AT moncayoanalucia estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT docarmomaria estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT barretomauriciol estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT cunhasergio estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT oliveiranelsonf estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT fiacconerosemeirel estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT santoscarlos estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT rodrigueslaurac estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT cooperphilipj estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
AT amorimleilad estimatingadjustedprevalenceratioinclusteredcrosssectionalepidemiologicaldata
_version_ 1725899114859724800