CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.

A comparison of two methods for estimating odds ratios: results from the National Health Survey. Export

BMC medical research methodology, Vol. 8, No. 1. (25 November 2008), 78.

Citation Format

[Posts]

View FullText article


liucun's tags for this article

accuracy measure prediction

X Reviews [Write a review of this article]

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Posting History

X Abstract

BACKGROUND: The practice of dichotomizing a continuous outcome variable does not make use of within-category information. That means the loss of information. This study compared two approaches in the modelling of the association between sociodemographic and smoking with obesity in adult women in Iran. METHODS: We conducted a comparative study between two methods via an illustrative example, using data from the "National Health Survey in Iran (NHSI)" database. It included 14176 women aged 20-69 years. At first, body mass index(BMI) was treated as a continuous variable, ORs and 95 per cent confidence intervals were calculated using the "without dichotomizing" method. Then subjects were classified into obese (BMI > or = 30 kg/m2) and nonobese (BMI < 30 kg/m2) and logistic regression model was used to estimate ORs and 95 per cent confidence intervals. RESULTS: The odds ratio estimates changed only slightly over the two methods. But the "without dichotomizing" method provided shorter confidence intervals on the odds ratio parameters than dichotomizing method. All relative confidence interval lengths were greater than 1.15. CONCLUSION: If responses are continuous then the "without dichotomizing" method is certainly more useful than the "dichotomizing" method and leads to more precise estimation of odds ratios.


X BibTeX record

X RIS record


Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.