Research Methodology Workshop - Hanoi 7-12 / 12 / 2010 Types of study design Risk, odds ratio, and relative risk Estimates of OR, RR Effects of information framing Interpretation of RR or RR. Mortality in the Titanic incident Class Dead Survived Total I 123 200 (62%) 323 ii 158 119 (43%) 277 III 528 181 (26%) 709 is there an association between passenger class and and death?
Research Methodology Workshop - Hanoi 7-12 / 12 / 2010 Types of study design Risk, odds ratio, and relative risk Estimates of OR, RR Effects of information framing Interpretation of RR or RR. Mortality in the Titanic incident Class Dead Survived Total I 123 200 (62%) 323 ii 158 119 (43%) 277 III 528 181 (26%) 709 is there an association between passenger class and and death?
Research Methodology Workshop - Hanoi 7-12 / 12 / 2010 Types of study design Risk, odds ratio, and relative risk Estimates of OR, RR Effects of information framing Interpretation of RR or RR. Mortality in the Titanic incident Class Dead Survived Total I 123 200 (62%) 323 ii 158 119 (43%) 277 III 528 181 (26%) 709 is there an association between passenger class and and death?
Garvan Institute of Medical Research University of New South Wales Sydney Australia Analysis of Association: Odds Ratio and Relative Risk Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Contents Types of study design Risk, odds ratio, and relative risk Estimates of OR, RR Effects of information framing Interpretation of RR or RR Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Mortality in the Titanic incident Class Dead Survived Total I 123 200 (62%) 323 II 158 119 (43%) 277 III 528 181 (26%) 709 Total 809 500 (38%) 1309 http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/S/Harrell/data/descriptions/titanic3info.txt Is there an association between passenger class and and death? Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Zoledronate and fracture Randomized controlled clinical trial Placebo n = 1062, Zoledronate n = 1065 Length of follow-up: 3 years Lyles KW, et al. Zoledronic acid and clinical fractures and mortality after hip fracture. N Engl J Med 2007;357. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa074941 Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Smoking and lung cancer Sir Richard Doll (1912 2005) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Doll Lung Cancer Controls Smokers 647 622 Non-smokers 2 27 R Doll and B Hill. BMJ 1950; ii:739-748 Is there an association between smoking and lung cancer? Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Study design PAST PRESENT FUTURE Cohort study, RCT (longitudinal, prospective) Case-control study Cross- sectional study Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Distinction of study designs: prospective / longitudinal study N subjects Risk presence Risk absence Event: a Event: c No event: b No event: d Event No event Risk presence a b Risk absence c d Follow-up Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Distinction of study designs: case-control study Event No event Risk presence: a Risk presence: c Risk absence: b Risk absence: d Event No event Risk presence a b Risk absence c d Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Distinction of study designs: cross-sectional study Event No event Risk presence: a Risk presence: c Risk absence: b Risk absence: d Event No event Risk presence a b Risk absence c d Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Risk The disease risk is defined as the probability that an individual who is disease-free at time T will develop a disease over a period of T + k. In 2000 (T) there are 100 people who were 90 years old with no hip fracture. Two years later (k = 3), 5 people sustained a hip fracture. The risk of hip fracture (over 3 years) is threfore: 3%. Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Measures of effect size Given two proportions p 1 and p 2 , there are several measures of effect size: Absolute difference D = p 1 p 2 Relative risk RR = p 1 / p 2
Odds ratio OR = [p 1 (1 - p 2 )] / [p 2 (1 - p 1 )] Number needed to treat (NNT): NNT = 1 / D Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Appropriateness of effect size Prospective study Cross-sectional study Case-control study Relative risk Odds ratio NNT D Odds ratio D Odds ratio Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Relationship between RR and OR Odds ratio is an estimate of relative risk Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Relative risk Risk of developing disease Treatment: p 1 = a / N 1 Placebo: p 2 = b / N 2 Relative risk RR = p 1 / p 2 Implications: RR = 1, there is no effect RR < 1, the treatment is beneficial. RR > 1, the treatment is harmful.
Treatment Control Disease a b No disease c d Sample size N 1 N 2
Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 95% confidence interval for RR Treatment Control Disease a b No disease c d Sample size N 1 N 2
Zoledronat e Placebo Fracture 92 139 No fracture 973 923 Sample size 1065
1062 = 0.514 to 0.847 Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Odds of developing disease over no disease Risk presence: O 1 = a / b
Risk absence: O 0 = c / d
Odds ratio OR = O 1 / O 0 Implications: OR = 1, there is no association OR < 1, the risk factor is associated with reduced disease risk RR > 1, the risk factor is associated with increased disease risk Disease No disease Risk presence a b Risk absence c d Sample size N 1 N 2
Odds ratio Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Disease No disease Risk presence a b Risk absence c d Lung K Control Smoking 647 622 No smoking 2 27 = 3.32 to 59.03 95% Confidence interval for OR Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Zoledronate and fracture: RR vs OR Zoledronat e Placebo Fracture 92 139 No fracture 973 923 Sample size 1065
1062 Not much difference! Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Recommendation for catheterization? Figure 1. Patients as Portrayed by Actors in the Video Component of the Survey. Panel A shows a 55-year-old black woman, Panel B a 55-year-old black man, Panel C a 70- year-old black woman, Panel D a 70-yearold black man, Panel E a 55-year-old white woman, Panel F a 55-year-old white man, Panel G a 70-year-old white woman, and Panel H a 70-year-old white man. Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Race, sex, and catheterization Catheterizatio n No Catheterizatio n Total White 652 68 720 Black 610 110 720 Schulman et al. New England Journal of Medicine (25/2/1999 ) Logistic regression analysis indicated that women (odds ratio, 0.60; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.4 to 0.9; P=0.02) and blacks (odds ratio, 0.60; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.4 to 0.9; P=0.02) were less likely to be referred for cardiac catheterization than men and whites, respectively. Analysis of racesex interactions showed that black women were significantly less likely to be referred for catheterization than white men (odds ratio, 0.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.7; P=0.004). Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Media reaction Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Where is the truth? Catheterization No catheterizatio n Black 610 110 White 652 68 Very much difference! Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Odds ratio overestimates relative risk Study Risk of disease Odds of disease Comparison between RR and OR Group 1 (p 1 ) Group 2 (p 2 ) Nhm 1 (odd 1 ) Nhm 2 (odd 2 ) RR OR 1 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.003 3 3.01 2 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 3 3.06 3 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.06 3 3.13 4 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.18 3 3.35 5 0.10 0.30 0.11 0.43 3 3.86 6 0.15 0.45 0.18 0.82 3 4.64 7 0.20 0.60 0.25 1.50 3 6.00 8 0.25 0.75 0.33 3.00 3 9.00 9 0.30 0.90 0.43 9.00 3 21.0 10 0.33 0.99 0.49 99.0 3 2101.0 Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 For a constant RR, OR increases with background risk Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 The effect of risk framing (communication) Which (hypothetical) study is more likely to be funded? T Fahey , et al. Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. BMJ 1995;311:1056-1059 Mammography Cardiac rehabilitatio n RR 0.66 0.80 Absolute risk reduction 0.06% 3% Percent of event-free 99.82 vs 99.80% 84% vs 87% Number needed to treat 1592 31 Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 The effect of risk framing (communication) Which (hypothetical) study is more likely to be funded? T Fahey , et al. Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. BMJ 1995;311:1056-1059 Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Prescription of drug Questionnaire A on relative risk reduction 1. A cholesterol lowering drug treatment reduces the relative risk of a fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction by 34%. This result is significant. 2. 2. A cholesterol lowering drug treatment reduces the relative risk of a fatal myocardial infarction by 26%. This result is not significant. 3. 3. A cholesterol lowering drug treatment increases the total mortality by 5.7%. This result is not significant. 4. 4. During a cholesterol lowering drug treatment, 71 patients have to be treated for five years to prevent one fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction. This result is significant. Questionnaire B on absolute risk reduction 1. A cholesterol lowering drug treatment reduces the incidence of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction by 14 per 1000 patients and five years of treatment. This result is significant. 2. 2. A cholesterol lowering drug treatment decreases the incidence of fatal myocardial infarction by one per 1000 patients and five years of treatment. This result is not significant. 3. 3. A cholesterol lowering drug treatment increases the total mortality by 1.2 deaths per 1000 patients and five years of treatment. This result is not significant. 4. 4. During a cholesterol lowering drug treatment 71 patients have to be treated for five years to prevent one fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction. This result is significant. Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 RR result and prescription of drug Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Interpretation of RR: vitamin C and serious outcomes NEJM April 27, 2006, 354: 1796-1806: Authors conclusion: Supplementation with vitamins C and E during pregnancy does not reduce the risk of preeclampsia in nulliparous women, the risk of intrauterine growth restriction, or the risk of death or other serious outcomes in their infants. FACTS: Preeclampsia: RR 1.20 (0.82 1.75) Growth restriction: RR 0.87 (0.66 1.16) Serious outcomes: RR 0.79 (0.61 1.02) Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Interpretation of RR: fat and breast cancer Womens Health Initiative study on fat consumption and breast cancer (JAMA): Even diets with only 29% of calories coming from fat didnt reduce the risk of disease. FACTS: Invasive Breast Cancer: HR 0.91 (0.83-1.01), p=0.07 Breast Cancer Mortality: HR 0.77 (0.48-1.22) Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 What does 95% confidence interval mean? Technical notes: logor = log(2.47) sd = log(5.2/1.17)/3.92 x = rannor(1000, logor, sd) or = exp(x) hist(or, breaks=20, xlim=c(0,10), ylim=c(0,250), xlab="Odds ratio") 95%CI OR 2.47, 95%CI: 1.17, 5.20 Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Clinically harmful Clinically beneficial 0.7 1.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 Strong evidence against any substantial harm or benefit because we have strong evidence against any values outside the CI, both these cases argue strongly that any effect is clinically unimportant. Note that this is true even though one is statistically significant. Relative risk Clinically harmful Clinically beneficial 0.7 1.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 May be harmful. The estimate is in the harmful range, with the CI including some values that would be clinically important harm. Strong evidence against any substantial benefit The CI does not include any values that would be an important benefit. Relative risk Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Clinically harmful Clinically beneficial 0.7 1.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 Relative risk Clinically harmful Clinically beneficial 0.7 1.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 Relative risk Likely to be harmful. The estimate and most of the CI are in the substantial harm range, and the CI does not include no effect. Results suggest substantial harm, but CI is too wide to permit a strong conclusion. Strong evidence against substantial benefit - the CI does not include any values that would be an important benefit Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Clinically harmful Clinically beneficial 0.7 1.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 Relative risk Suggestion of benefit - Estimate and most of CI are in the benefit range Clinically meaningful benefit possible but not likely Some of the CI is in this range, but not the estimate Strong evidence against substantial harm No values in the CI would constitute important harm May be no effect (not statistically significant) The CI includes no effect Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Clinically harmful Clinically beneficial 0.7 1.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 Relative risk Suggestion of substantial benefit. The estimate would be an important benefit if true. May be no effect (not statistically significant) The CI includes no effect Which of the two results would be more exciting? I think the lower one is, even though it has wider uncertainty, because the estimate is better. Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Clinically harmful Clinically beneficial 0.7 1.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 Relative risk Strong evidence of benefit (statistically significant) Substantial benefit appears likely, but CI too wide to rule out clinically insignificant benefit The CI includes some benefits that would be too small to be clinically important. Studies almost never include this observation if they reach statistical significance. Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Clinically harmful Clinically beneficial 0.7 1.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 Relative risk Strong evidence of substantial clinical benefit This is the most satisfying type of result. Even the upper confidence bound is in the substantial benefit range. Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Clinically harmful Clinically beneficial 0.7 1.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 No conclusions possible due to very wide CI This is the least satisfying type of result. There is very little information in the study data. Relative risk Research Methodology Workshop Hanoi 7-12/12/2010 Summary Relative risk is a common effect size measure Odds ratio is an estimate of relative risk In the absence of prospective study, case-control study can estimate RR by OR For diseases with high risk, OR tends to overestimate effect size. Confidence interval is more meaningful and more informative than p-value.