• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of oenvmedOccupational and Environmental MedicineVisit this articleSubmit a manuscriptReceive email alertsContact usBMJ
Occup Environ Med. Apr 1998; 55(4): 272–277.
PMCID: PMC1757577

Prevalence odds ratio or prevalence ratio in the analysis of cross sectional data: what is to be done?

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To review the appropriateness of the prevalence odds ratio (POR) and the prevalence ratio (PR) as effect measures in the analysis of cross sectional data and to evaluate different models for the multivariate estimation of the PR. METHODS: A system of linear differential equations corresponding to a dynamic model of a cohort with a chronic disease was developed. At any point in time, a cross sectional analysis of the people then in the cohort provided a prevalence based measure of the effect of exposure on disease. This formed the basis for exploring the relations between the POR, the PR, and the incidence rate ratio (IRR). Examples illustrate relations for various IRRs, prevalences, and differential exodus rates. Multivariate point and interval estimation of the PR by logistic regression is illustrated and compared with the results from proportional hazards regression (PH) and generalised linear modelling (GLM). RESULTS: The POR is difficult to interpret without making restrictive assumptions and the POR and PR may lead to different conclusions with regard to confounding and effect modification. The PR is always conservative relative to the IRR and, if PR > 1, the POR is always > PR. In a fixed cohort and with an adverse exposure, the POR is always > or = IRR, but in a dynamic cohort with sufficient underlying follow up the POR may overestimate or underestimate the IRR, depending on the duration of follow up. Logistic regression models provide point and interval estimates of the PR (and POR) but may be intractable in the presence of many covariates. Proportional hazards and generalised linear models provide statistical methods directed specifically at the PR, but the interval estimation in the case of PH is conservative and the GLM procedure may require constrained estimation. CONCLUSIONS: The PR is conservative, consistent, and interpretable relative to the IRR and should be used in preference to the POR. Multivariate estimation of the PR should be executed by means of generalised linear models or, conservatively, by proportional hazards regression.

 

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (132K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Alho JM. On prevalence, incidence, and duration in general stable populations. Biometrics. 1992 Jun;48(2):587–592. [PubMed]
  • Lee J, Chia KS. Estimation of prevalence rate ratios for cross sectional data: an example in occupational epidemiology. Br J Ind Med. 1993 Sep;50(9):861–862. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Lee J. Odds ratio or relative risk for cross-sectional data? Int J Epidemiol. 1994 Feb;23(1):201–203. [PubMed]
  • Axelson O. Some recent developments in occupational epidemiology. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1994;20(Spec No):9–18. [PubMed]
  • Strömberg U. Prevalence odds ratio v prevalence ratio. Occup Environ Med. 1994 Feb;51(2):143–144. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Axelson O, Fredriksson M, Ekberg K. Use of the prevalence ratio v the prevalence odds ratio as a measure of risk in cross sectional studies. Occup Environ Med. 1994 Aug;51(8):574–574. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Lee J, Chia KS. Use of the prevalence ratio v the prevalence odds ratio as a measure of risk in cross sectional studies. Occup Environ Med. 1994 Dec;51(12):841–841. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Hughes K. Odds ratios in cross-sectional studies. Int J Epidemiol. 1995 Apr;24(2):463–468. [PubMed]
  • Osborn J, Cattaruzza MS. Odds ratio and relative risk for cross-sectional data. Int J Epidemiol. 1995 Apr;24(2):464–465. [PubMed]
  • Strömberg U. Prevalence odds ratio v prevalence ratio--some further comments. Occup Environ Med. 1995 Feb;52(2):143–143. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Axelson O, Fredriksson M, Ekberg K. Use of the prevalence ratio v the prevalence odds ratio in view of confounding in cross sectional studies. Occup Environ Med. 1995 Jul;52(7):494–494. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Lee J, Chia KS. Prevalence odds ratio v prevalence ratio--a response. Occup Environ Med. 1995 Nov;52(11):781–782. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Zocchetti C, Consonni D, Bertazzi PA. Estimation of prevalence rate ratios from cross-sectional data. Int J Epidemiol. 1995 Oct;24(5):1064–1067. [PubMed]
  • Nurminen M. To use or not to use the odds ratio in epidemiologic analyses? Eur J Epidemiol. 1995 Aug;11(4):365–371. [PubMed]
  • Zocchetti C, Consonni D, Bertazzi PA. Relationship between prevalence rate ratios and odds ratios in cross-sectional studies. Int J Epidemiol. 1997 Feb;26(1):220–223. [PubMed]
  • Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. Am J Epidemiol. 1987 May;125(5):761–768. [PubMed]
  • Eisen EA. Healthy worker effect in morbidity studies. Med Lav. 1995 Mar-Apr;86(2):125–138. [PubMed]
  • Steineck G, Ahlbom A. A definition of bias founded on the concept of the study base. Epidemiology. 1992 Nov;3(6):477–482. [PubMed]
  • Nurminen M. On the epidemiologic notion of confounding and confounder identification. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997 Feb;23(1):64–68. [PubMed]
  • Breslow N. Covariance analysis of censored survival data. Biometrics. 1974 Mar;30(1):89–99. [PubMed]

Articles from Occupational and Environmental Medicine are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • MedGen
    MedGen
    Related information in MedGen
  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...