2003Anaesthesia and Intensive CareRequires access

Use of Odds Ratios on Anaesthesia Related Studies

Kwok M. Ho, Richard Marshall, Sarah Walters

Open publisher page 4 citations

Abstract

In line with other medical journals, odds ratios are increasingly being reported in anaesthesia literature. The frequency of the use of odds ratio and how well it relates to the relative risk when it is interpreted as relative risk remains unknown. We investigated the use of odds ratio, and its relationship to relative risk and the incidence of outcome in this study. We identified 60 meta-analyses and 87 original articles that reported odds ratios. While relative risk could have been reported in 79% of the studies, only a small proportion (3%) of these studies have estimated and reported the relative risk in addition to the odds ratio. There is a significant bias if odds ratio is interpreted as relative risk, especially so when the incidence of outcome is high. While odds ratio is a valid measure of treatment effect in its own right, anaesthetists and investigators should be careful not to interpret odds ratio as equivalent to relative risk.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In line with other medical journals, odds ratios are increasingly being reported in anaesthesia literature. The frequency of the use of odds ratio and how well it relates to the relative risk when it is interpreted as relative risk remains unknown. We investigated the use of odds ratio, and its relationship to relative risk and the incidence of outcome in this study. We identified 60 meta-analyses and 87 original articles that reported odds ratios. While relative risk could have been reported in 79% of the studies, only a small proportion (3%) of these studies have estimated and reported the relative risk in addition to the odds ratio. There is a significant bias if odds ratio is interpreted as relative risk, especially so when the incidence of outcome is high. While odds ratio is a valid measure of treatment effect in its own right, anaesthetists and investigators should be careful not to interpret odds ratio as equivalent to relative risk.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In line with other medical journals, odds ratios are increasingly being reported in anaesthesia literature. The frequency of the use of odds ratio and how well it relates to the relative risk when it is interpreted as relative risk remains unknown. We investigated the use of odds ratio, and its relationship to relative risk and the incidence of outcome in this study. We identified 60 meta-analyses and 87 original articles that reported odds ratios. While relative risk could have been reported in 79% of the studies, only a small proportion (3%) of these studies have estimated and reported the relative risk in addition to the odds ratio. There is a significant bias if odds ratio is interpreted as relative risk, especially so when the incidence of outcome is high. While odds ratio is a valid measure of treatment effect in its own right, anaesthetists and investigators should be careful not to interpret odds ratio as equivalent to relative risk.

Key concepts: Odds ratio, Medicine, Relative risk, Odds, Diagnostic odds ratio, Incidence (geometry), Risk factor, Confidence interval

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Use of Odds Ratios on Anaesthesia Related Studies — Research Paper | ScholarLens