References
Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Walker AM. Concepts of interaction. Am J Epidemiol. 1980;112(4):467–470.
Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
VanderWeele TJ, Knol MJ. A tutorial on interaction. Epidemiol Methods (in press).
Rothman KJ. Causes. Am J Epidemiol. 1976;104:587–592.
VanderWeele TJ. Sufficient cause interactions and statistical interactions. Epidemiology. 2009;20(1):6–13.
Rothman KJ. Modern epidemiology. 1st ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1986.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Confidence interval estimation of interaction. Epidemiology. 1992;3(5):452–456.
Lundberg M, Fredlund P, Hallqvist J, Diderichsen F. A SAS program calculating three measures of interaction with confidence intervals.
VanderWeele TJ, Vansteelandt S. A weighting approach to causal effects and additive interaction in case–control studies: marginal structural linear odds models. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174:1197–1203.
Rothman KJ. Epidemiology: an introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.
Knol MJ, VanderWeele TJ, Groenwold RHH, Klungel OH, Rovers MM, Grobbee DE. Estimating measures of interaction on an additive scale for preventive exposures. Eur J Epidemiol. 2011;26:433–438.
Skrondal A. Interaction as departure from additivity in case–control studies: a cautionary note. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158(3):251–258.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Invariance to recoding the outcome
Here we show that the alternative definition of the attributable proportion, \(AP^{\ast}=\frac{RERI}{RR_{11}-1}, \) is invariant to the recoding of the outcome, whereas Rothman’s primary definition, \(AP^{\ast }=\frac{RERI}{RR_{11}}, \) is not. The definition of the alternative attributable proportion is [6]:
If we reverse the coding of the outcome, the relative risks for the categories (X 1 = 1, X 2 = 1), (X 1 = 1, X 2 = 0), (X 1 = 0, X 2 = 1) become respectively \(\frac{1-p_{11}}{1-p_{00}},\,\frac{1-p_{10}}{1-p_{00}}\), and \(\frac{1-p_{01}}{1-p_{00}}, \) and the alternative attributable proportion measure is then
which is the same measure we obtained under the original coding of the outcome.
For Rothman’s primary definition of the attributable proportion, \(AP=\frac{RERI}{RR_{11}}\), under the original coding we have that this is
If we reverse the coding of the outcome, the relative risks for the categories (X 1 = 1, X 2 = 1), (X 1 = 1, X 2 = 0), (X 1 = 0, X 2 = 1) become respectively \(\frac{1-p_{11}}{1-p_{00}},\) \(\frac{1-p_{10}}{1-p_{00}}\), and \(\frac{1-p_{01}}{1-p_{00}},\) and Rothman’s primary attributable proportion measure is then
so that the measure reverses sign and is of a very different magnitude.
Appendix 2: SAS and Stata code to implement the alternative attributable proportion measure
Suppose the outcome is in variable ‘d’, the first exposure in variable ‘g’ and the second exposure in variable ‘e’ with three covariates ‘c1 c2 c3’. The following SAS code will estimate the alternative attributable proportion measure, \(AP^{\ast }=\frac{RERI}{RR_{11}-1}, \) and its confidence interval using the delta method (see Online Appendix):
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
VanderWeele, T.J. Reconsidering the denominator of the attributable proportion for interaction. Eur J Epidemiol 28, 779–784 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-013-9843-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-013-9843-6