PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7728286

Comparing standardized mortality ratios.

B G Armstrong
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

It is well known that the ratio of two standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) is not in general an unbiased estimate of the underlying within-stratum ratio of rates of one subcohort relative to another. It is also established, although less well known, that a sufficient condition for unbiasedness is that the underlying stratum-specific rates in each of the two subcohorts be proportional to the reference population. Further, the ratio of SMRs is more precise than the wholly internal (Poisson regression) estimate of rate ratio. In data that are compatible with the proportionality assumption, use of the ratio of SMRs thus buys precision at the cost of increased vulnerability to bias. To further elucidate choice between methods, we derive expressions for the asymptotic precision of each. These show that improved precision of ratio of SMRs depends on the extent to which the distribution of expected deaths over strata is different in the two cohorts, or equivalently, on the variance over strata of the proportion of expected deaths falling in the first cohort. The results are illustrated by hypothetic examples.

Explore related subjects

BiasHumansMortalityStatistics as TopicCohort AnalysisComparative StudiesData AdjustmentDemographic FactorsError SourcesEstimation TechnicsEvaluationEvaluation MethodologyMeasurementMethodological StudiesPopulationPopulation DynamicsResearch MethodologyStandardizationStudiesWorldComparative StudyJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B G Armstrong. 1995. Comparing standardized mortality ratios.. https://doi.org/10.1016/1047-2797(94)00032-o

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed1998

Accounting for errors in dose estimates used in studies of workers exposed to external radiation.

This paper discusses approaches for accounting for errors in dose estimates used in dose-response analyses of data from epidemiologic studies of workers exposed to external radiation and illustrates these approaches with analyses of data on workers at the Hanford site. In these analyses, estimates of the excess relative risk are corrected for bias in recorded doses as estimates of organ dose, and confidence intervals reflect uncertainty in the correction factors. For the Hanford data, these procedures did not greatly modify results for all cancer excluding leukemia, but the upper confidence limit for leukemia was increased by about 40%, a difference that is of some importance in comparing worker-based estimates and confidence intervals with estimates that serve as the basis of radiation protection standards. It is argued that aside from taking account of uncertainty in correction factors, no additional corrections are needed to address random errors resulting from variation in exposure energies and geometries. In addition, it is shown that because the larger cumulative doses, which are most influential in dose-response analyses, are the sums of large numbers of independent dosimeter readings, random errors resulting from variation in laboratory measurements are unlikely to be important for epidemiologic purposes. It is hoped that the approaches illustrated in this paper will be applied to future analyses of data from worker studies, especially combined analyses of data from several countries. Taking account of uncertainty in factors that correct for systematic bias will be especially important as uncertainty resulting from sampling variation decreases.

Bias↗