Misuse of odds ratios in obesity literature: An empirical analysis of published studies

Gabriel S. Tajeu, Bisakha Sen, David B. Allison, Nir Menachemi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Odds ratios (ORs) are widely used in scientific research to demonstrate the associations between outcome variables and covariates (risk factors) of interest, and are often described in language suitable for risks or probabilities, but odds and probabilities are related, not equivalent. In situations where the outcome is not rare (e.g., obesity), ORs no longer approximate the relative risk ratio (RR) and may be misinterpreted. Our study examines the extent of misinterpretation of ORs in Obesity and International Journal of Obesity. We reviewed all 2010 issues of these journals to identify all articles that presented ORs. Included articles were then primarily reviewed for correct presentation and interpretation of ORs; and secondarily reviewed for article characteristics that may have been associated with how ORs are presented and interpreted. Of the 855 articles examined, 62 (7.3%) presented ORs. ORs were presented incorrectly in 23.2% of these articles. Clinical articles were more likely to present ORs correctly than social science or basic science articles. Studies with outcome variables that had higher relative prevalence were less likely to present ORs correctly. Overall, almost one-quarter of the studies presenting ORs in two leading journals on obesity misinterpreted them. Furthermore, even when researchers present ORs correctly, the lay media may misinterpret them as relative RRs. Therefore, we suggest that when the magnitude of associations is of interest, researchers should carefully and accurately present interpretable measures of associationincluding RRs and risk differencesto minimize confusion and misrepresentation of research results.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1726-1731
Number of pages6
JournalObesity
Volume20
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Obesity
Odds Ratio
Research Personnel
Confusion
Social Sciences
Research
Language
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Endocrinology
  • Nutrition and Dietetics

Cite this

Misuse of odds ratios in obesity literature : An empirical analysis of published studies. / Tajeu, Gabriel S.; Sen, Bisakha; Allison, David B.; Menachemi, Nir.

In: Obesity, Vol. 20, No. 8, 01.08.2012, p. 1726-1731.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tajeu, Gabriel S. ; Sen, Bisakha ; Allison, David B. ; Menachemi, Nir. / Misuse of odds ratios in obesity literature : An empirical analysis of published studies. In: Obesity. 2012 ; Vol. 20, No. 8. pp. 1726-1731.
@article{ea94ea75877f4271ba450c7c9fbd8389,
title = "Misuse of odds ratios in obesity literature: An empirical analysis of published studies",
abstract = "Odds ratios (ORs) are widely used in scientific research to demonstrate the associations between outcome variables and covariates (risk factors) of interest, and are often described in language suitable for risks or probabilities, but odds and probabilities are related, not equivalent. In situations where the outcome is not rare (e.g., obesity), ORs no longer approximate the relative risk ratio (RR) and may be misinterpreted. Our study examines the extent of misinterpretation of ORs in Obesity and International Journal of Obesity. We reviewed all 2010 issues of these journals to identify all articles that presented ORs. Included articles were then primarily reviewed for correct presentation and interpretation of ORs; and secondarily reviewed for article characteristics that may have been associated with how ORs are presented and interpreted. Of the 855 articles examined, 62 (7.3{\%}) presented ORs. ORs were presented incorrectly in 23.2{\%} of these articles. Clinical articles were more likely to present ORs correctly than social science or basic science articles. Studies with outcome variables that had higher relative prevalence were less likely to present ORs correctly. Overall, almost one-quarter of the studies presenting ORs in two leading journals on obesity misinterpreted them. Furthermore, even when researchers present ORs correctly, the lay media may misinterpret them as relative RRs. Therefore, we suggest that when the magnitude of associations is of interest, researchers should carefully and accurately present interpretable measures of associationincluding RRs and risk differencesto minimize confusion and misrepresentation of research results.",
author = "Tajeu, {Gabriel S.} and Bisakha Sen and Allison, {David B.} and Nir Menachemi",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1038/oby.2012.71",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "1726--1731",
journal = "Obesity",
issn = "1930-7381",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Misuse of odds ratios in obesity literature

T2 - An empirical analysis of published studies

AU - Tajeu, Gabriel S.

AU - Sen, Bisakha

AU - Allison, David B.

AU - Menachemi, Nir

PY - 2012/8/1

Y1 - 2012/8/1

N2 - Odds ratios (ORs) are widely used in scientific research to demonstrate the associations between outcome variables and covariates (risk factors) of interest, and are often described in language suitable for risks or probabilities, but odds and probabilities are related, not equivalent. In situations where the outcome is not rare (e.g., obesity), ORs no longer approximate the relative risk ratio (RR) and may be misinterpreted. Our study examines the extent of misinterpretation of ORs in Obesity and International Journal of Obesity. We reviewed all 2010 issues of these journals to identify all articles that presented ORs. Included articles were then primarily reviewed for correct presentation and interpretation of ORs; and secondarily reviewed for article characteristics that may have been associated with how ORs are presented and interpreted. Of the 855 articles examined, 62 (7.3%) presented ORs. ORs were presented incorrectly in 23.2% of these articles. Clinical articles were more likely to present ORs correctly than social science or basic science articles. Studies with outcome variables that had higher relative prevalence were less likely to present ORs correctly. Overall, almost one-quarter of the studies presenting ORs in two leading journals on obesity misinterpreted them. Furthermore, even when researchers present ORs correctly, the lay media may misinterpret them as relative RRs. Therefore, we suggest that when the magnitude of associations is of interest, researchers should carefully and accurately present interpretable measures of associationincluding RRs and risk differencesto minimize confusion and misrepresentation of research results.

AB - Odds ratios (ORs) are widely used in scientific research to demonstrate the associations between outcome variables and covariates (risk factors) of interest, and are often described in language suitable for risks or probabilities, but odds and probabilities are related, not equivalent. In situations where the outcome is not rare (e.g., obesity), ORs no longer approximate the relative risk ratio (RR) and may be misinterpreted. Our study examines the extent of misinterpretation of ORs in Obesity and International Journal of Obesity. We reviewed all 2010 issues of these journals to identify all articles that presented ORs. Included articles were then primarily reviewed for correct presentation and interpretation of ORs; and secondarily reviewed for article characteristics that may have been associated with how ORs are presented and interpreted. Of the 855 articles examined, 62 (7.3%) presented ORs. ORs were presented incorrectly in 23.2% of these articles. Clinical articles were more likely to present ORs correctly than social science or basic science articles. Studies with outcome variables that had higher relative prevalence were less likely to present ORs correctly. Overall, almost one-quarter of the studies presenting ORs in two leading journals on obesity misinterpreted them. Furthermore, even when researchers present ORs correctly, the lay media may misinterpret them as relative RRs. Therefore, we suggest that when the magnitude of associations is of interest, researchers should carefully and accurately present interpretable measures of associationincluding RRs and risk differencesto minimize confusion and misrepresentation of research results.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864326307&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864326307&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/oby.2012.71

DO - 10.1038/oby.2012.71

M3 - Article

C2 - 22436842

AN - SCOPUS:84864326307

VL - 20

SP - 1726

EP - 1731

JO - Obesity

JF - Obesity

SN - 1930-7381

IS - 8

ER -