Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Postgrad Med. 2015 May;127(4):359-67. doi: 10.1080/00325481.2015.1022494. Epub 2015 Mar 7.

Odds ratio vs risk ratio in randomized controlled trials.

Author information

1
Department of Neonatology, King Edward Memorial Hospital for women and newborns , Perth, Western Australia , Australia.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Use of odds ratio (OR) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been criticized because it overestimates the effect size, if incorrectly interpreted as risk ratio (RR). To what extent does this make a difference in the context of clinical research is unclear. We, therefore, aimed to address this issue considering its importance in evidence-based practice of medicine.

METHODS:

We reviewed 580 RCTs published in the New England Journal of Medicine between January 2004 and June 2014 and identified 107 RCTs that reported unadjusted RR (n = 76) or OR (n = 31) for the primary outcome. For studies reporting ORs, we calculated RRs, and vice versa, using Stata software. The percentage of divergence between the reported and calculated effect size estimates was analyzed.

RESULTS:

None of the RCTs showed a statistically significant result becoming insignificant or vice versa depending on the effect size estimate. OR exaggerated the RR in 62% of the RCTs. The percentage of overestimation was > 50% in 28 RCTs and > 100% in 13 RCTs. The degree of overestimation was positively correlated with the prevalence of outcomes (spearman's rho = 0.84 and 0.66, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION:

Use of OR instead of RR in RCTs does not change the qualitative inference of results. However, the use of OR can markedly exaggerate the effect size in RCTs if misinterpreted as RR and, hence, has the potential to mislead clinicians.

KEYWORDS:

Odds ratio; effect size; randomized controlled trials; risk ratio

PMID:
25746068
DOI:
10.1080/00325481.2015.1022494
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Taylor & Francis
Loading ...
Support Center