European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 365–371

To use or not to use the odds ratio in epidemiologic analyses?



This paper argues that the use of the odds ratio parameter in epidemiology needs to be considered with a view to the specific study design and the types of exposure and disease data at hand. Frequently, the odds ratio measure is being used instead of the risk ratio or the incidence-proportion ratio in cohort studies or as an estimate for the incidence-density ratio in case-referent studies. Therefore, the analyses of epidemiologic data have produced biased estimates and the presentation of results has been misleading. However, the odds ratio can be relinquished as an effect measure for these study designs; and, the application of the case-base sampling approach permits the incidence ratio and difference measures to be estimated without any untenable assumptions. For the Poisson regression, the odds ratio is not a parameter of interest; only the risk or rate ratio and difference are relevant. For the conditional logistic regression in matched case-referent studies, the odds ratio remains useful, but only when it is interpreted as an estimate of the incidence-density ratio. Thus the odds ratio should, in general, give way to the incidence ratio and difference as the measures of choice for exposure effect in epidemiology.

Key words

Biometry Epidemiologic methods Odds ratio Risk difference Risk ratio 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pearce N. What does the odds ratio estimate in a case-control study? Int J Epidemiol 1993; 22: 1189–1192.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee J. Odds ratio for cross-sectional data? Int J Epidemiol 1994; 23: 201–203.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miettinen OS. Theoretical epidemiology: Principles of occurrence research in medicine. Albany, NY; Delmar Publishers, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research, Vol. 1: The design and analysis of case-control studies. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1980. IARC Scientific publications, No. 32.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research, Vol 2: The design and analysis of cohort studies. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1987. IARC Scientific Publications, No. 82.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gail MH. A bibliography and comments on the use of statistical models in epidemiology in the 1980s. Stat Med 1991; 10: 1819–1885.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sinclair JC, Bracken MB. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analyses of randomised trials. J. Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 881–889.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 125: 761–788.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miettinen OS, Cook EF. Confounding: Essence and detection. Am J Epidemiol 1981; 114: 593–603.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greenland S, Robins J. Identifiability, exchangeability and epidemiologic confounding. Int J Epidemiol 1986; 15: 413–419.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gail MH, Wieand S, Piandatosi S. Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomised experiments with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariables. Biometrika 1984; 71: 431–344.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Savitz DA. Measurements, estimates, and inferences in reporting epidemiologic study results [editorial]. Am J Epidemiol 1992; 135: 223–224.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Axelson O, Fredrikson M, Ekberg K. A comment on the implications of using odds ratios or prevalence ratios in cross-sectional studies. In: Hemon D (ed), Book of abstracts of the 8th International Symposium Epidemiology in Occupational Health, 10–12 September 1991, Paris, 1991: 23.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Axelson O, Fredrikson M, Ekberg K. Use of the prevalence ratiov the prevalence odds ratio as a measure of risk in cross sectional studies. Occup and Environ Med 1994; 51: 574.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leino T, Tammilehto L, Luukkonen R, Kanerva L, Nordman H. Respiratory and skin symptoms in hairdressers. In: Program résumé of the 43rd Nordic Work Environment Meeting, 28–30 August 1994, Loen, Norway, 1994: 87.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Viikari-Juntura E, Riihimäki H, Tola S, Videman T, Mutanen P. Neck trouble in machine operating, dynamic physical work and sedentary work: A prospective study on occupational and individual risk factors. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 1411–1422.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greenland S. Modelling risk ratios from matched cohort data: An estimating equation approach. Appl Statist 1994; 43: 223–232.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greenland S, Thomas DC. On the need for the rare disease assumption in case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol 1982; 116: 547–553.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wacholder S. Binomial regression in GLIM: Estimating risk ratios and risk differences. Am J Epidemiol 1986; 123: 174–184.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Greenland S. Limitations of the logistic analysis of epidemiologic data. Am J Epidemiol 1979; 110: 693–698.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Manton KG, Stallard E. Chronic disease modelling: Measurement and evaluation of the risks of chronic disease processes. London: Charles Griffin & Company Ltd, 1988. Mathematics in medicine, No. 2.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berry G, Mandryk J, Mock P. Presentation of results of logistic regression: Analyses of cohort and cross-sectional studies. In: Francis IS, Manly BFJ, Lam FC (eds), Pacific Statistical Congress. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers (North-Holland), 1986: 79–82.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cornfield J. A method of estimating comparative rates from clinical data: Applications to cancer of the lung, breast and cervix. J Natl Cancer Inst 1951; 11: 1269–1275.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greenland S, Thomas DC, Morgenstern H. The rare-disease assumption revisited: A critique of ‘estimators of relative risk for case-control studies’. Am J Epidemiol 1986; 124: 869–876.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kupper LL, McMichael AJ, Spritas R. A hybrid epidemiologic study design useful in estimating relative risk. Am Stat Assoc 1975; 70: 524–528.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miettinen OS. Estimability and estimation incase-referent studies. Am J Epidemiol 1976; 103: 226–235.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miettinen O. Design options in epidemiologic research: an update. Scand J Work Environ Health 1982; 8 (suppl 1): 7–14.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miettinen O, Nurminen M. Comparative analysis of two rates. Stat Med 1985; 4: 213–226.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Greenland S. Adjustment of risk ratios in case-base studies (hybrid epidemiologic designs). Stat Med 1986; 5: 579–584.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Miettinen OS, Caro JJ. Principles of nonexperimental assessment of excess risk, with special reference to adverse drug reactions. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 325–331.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nurminen M. Analysis of epidemiologic case-base studies for binary data. Stat Med 1989; 8: 1241–1254.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Greenland S. Interpretation and estimation of summary ratios under heterogeneity. Stat Med 1982; 1: 217–227.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nurminen M. Assessment of excess risk in case-base studies. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 1081–1092.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wacholder S. Practical considerations in choosing between the case-cohort and nested case-control designs. Epidemiology 1991; 2: 155–158.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wacholder S, Boivin J-F. External comparisons with the case-cohort design. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 126: 1208–1209.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rothman KJ. Modern epidemiology. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1986.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Prentice R. Use of the logistic model in retrospective studies. Biometrics 1976; 32: 599–606.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Prentice RL. A case-cohort design for epidemiologic cohort studies and disease prevention trials. Biometrika 1986; 73: 1–11.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schouten EG, Decker JM, Kok FJ, Le Cessie S, Van Houwelingen HC, Pool J, Wandenbroucke JP. Risk ratio and rate ratio estimation in case-cohort designs: Hypertension and cardiovascular mortality. Stat Med 1993; 12: 1733–1745.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, and Department of Public HealthUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations