PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 8085071

[2 solutions for estimating odds ratios with zeros].

Abstract

Two solutions are proposed for the estimation of odds ratios (OR) when one or the two elements of the principal (A, D) or secondary (B, C) diagonals of a 2 x 2 matrix (A, B, C, D) are 0. The OR estimate is AD/BC. If A or D are 0, OR = 0; if B or C are 0, the OR is undefined. Analytical solution. This solution conserves the marginal totals. If B = 0 and C = 0, the OR cannot be less than AD/1 (the minimal acceptable value), then the equation (A-X) (D-X)/X2 = KAD/1 searches for that X which subtracted to A and B and added to B (0) and C (0) yields an OR K times AD; if B = 0 and C > 0 then (A-X) (D-X)/X (C+X) = AD/C; if B > 0 and C = 0, then B replaces C in the latter equation. If A and D are 0, X2/(B-X) (C-X) = 1/KBC; if A = 0 and D > 0, X (D+X)/(B-X) (C-X) = D/KBC; if A > 0 and D = 0, A replaces D in the latter equation. K can be taken at the maximum Chi squared value. Probabilistic solution. Zeros are replaced by ones and the elements of the diagonal without zeros are increased proportionally until the exact probability (Fisher) of this new matrix is equal or the nearest less than the exact probability of the original matrix. Since small numbers increase the estimation bias, the Haldane's correction should be always applied. This correction adds 0.5 to A, B C and D to estimate the OR (In OR) and adds 1 to these elements to estimate their variance.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C Valenzuela. 1993. [2 solutions for estimating odds ratios with zeros].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8085071/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

What is so odd about odds?

In clinical studies, the relative likelihood of an event occurring between 2 groups is often expressed as the risk ratio (RR) or the odds ratio (OR). The RR is an intuitive parameter that is relatively easy to interpret. Quantitative interpretation of an OR is much more difficult and is often incorrectly equated to that of an RR. The problem is that OR may differ substantially from RR, especially when the outcome of interest is common in the study population. This article explains and clarifies controversial issues surrounding the use and interpretation of the OR. Theoretical concepts relating to ORs are illustrated by examples from the surgical literature. By reviewing articles from 5 surgical journals over a 5-year period, we show that the OR is often presented and misinterpreted as equivalent to the RR. When the discrepancy is large, using OR uncritically as an estimate of RR will strongly bias inferences about treatment effect or cause of disease by amplifying the apparent strength of an association between an exposure and an outcome.

Odds Ratio↗