Making sense of odds and odds ratios.

Odds and odds ratios are hard for many clinicians to understand. Odds are the probability of an event occurring divided by the probability of the event not occurring. An odds ratio is the odds of the event in one group, for example, those exposed to a drug, divided by the odds in another group not exposed. Odds ratios always exaggerate the true relative risk to some degree. When the probability of the disease is low (for example, less than 10%), the odds ratio approximates the true relative risk. As the event becomes more common, the exaggeration grows, and the odds ratio no longer is a useful proxy for the relative risk. Although the odds ratio is always a valid measure of association, it is not always a good substitute for the relative risk. Because of the difficulty in understanding odds ratios, their use should probably be limited to case-control studies and logistic regression, for which odds ratios are the proper measures of association.

[1]  K. Schulz,et al.  Case-control studies: research in reverse , 2002, The Lancet.

[2]  K. Katz.  The (relative) risks of using odds ratios. , 2006, Archives of dermatology.

[3]  Grimes Da.  The case for confidence intervals. , 1992 .

[4]  Jonathan J. Deeks,et al.  Down with odds ratios! , 1996, Evidence Based Medicine.

[5]  A. Dewdney.  200% of Nothing : An Eye-Opening Tour through the Twists and Turns of Math Abuse and Innumeracy , 1993 .

[6]  Edna Schechtman,et al.  Odds ratio, relative risk, absolute risk reduction, and the number needed to treat--which of these should we use? , 2002, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[7]  D. Altman,et al.  The odds ratio , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  H. Davies,et al.  When can odds ratios mislead? , 1998, BMJ.

[9]  D. Grimes.  The case for confidence intervals. , 1992, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  J. Zhang,et al.  What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. , 1998, JAMA.

[11]  K. Schulz,et al.  Bias and causal associations in observational research , 2002, The Lancet.

[12]  J. Trussell,et al.  The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization: findings from the U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization. , 1996, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  D. Grimes.  Progestins, breast cancer, and the limitations of epidemiology. , 1992, Fertility and sterility.

[14]  D. A. Luke,et al.  An Odd Measure of Risk: Use and Misuse of the Odds Ratio , 2001, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[15]  T. Cook.  Advanced statistics: up with odds ratios! A case for odds ratios when outcomes are common. , 2002, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[16]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  Misunderstandings about the effects of race and sex on physicians' referrals for cardiac catheterization. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  J. Piper,et al.  Low-dose versus high-dose oxytocin augmentation of labor--a randomized trial. , 1995, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.