Sensitivity Analysis on Odds Ratios
- PMID: 37312597
- PMCID: PMC10631298
- DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwad137
Sensitivity Analysis on Odds Ratios
Abstract
The classical Cornfield inequalities state that if a third confounding variable is fully responsible for an observed association between the exposure and the outcome variables, then the association between both the exposure and the confounder, and the confounder and the outcome, must be at least as strong as the association between the exposure and the outcome, as measured by the risk ratio. The work of Ding and VanderWeele on assumption-free sensitivity analysis sharpens this bound to a bivariate function of the 2 risk ratios involving the confounder. Analogous results are nonexistent for the odds ratio, even though the conversion from odds ratios to risk ratios can sometimes be problematic. We present a version of the classical Cornfield inequalities for the odds ratio. The proof is based on the mediant inequality, dating back to ancient Alexandria. We also develop several sharp bivariate bounds of the observed association, where the 2 variables are either risk ratios or odds ratios involving the confounder.
Keywords: Cornfield conditions; Cornfield inequalities; mediant inequality; odds ratio; sensitivity analysis.
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Similar articles
-
Sensitivity Analysis Without Assumptions.Epidemiology. 2016 May;27(3):368-77. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000457. Epidemiology. 2016. PMID: 26841057 Free PMC article.
-
On the nondifferential misclassification of a binary confounder.Epidemiology. 2012 May;23(3):433-9. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31824d1f63. Epidemiology. 2012. PMID: 22450692 Free PMC article.
-
Bias formulas for external adjustment and sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounders.Ann Epidemiol. 2008 Aug;18(8):637-46. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.04.003. Ann Epidemiol. 2008. PMID: 18652982
-
The relative merits of risk ratios and odds ratios.Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009 May;163(5):438-45. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.31. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009. PMID: 19414690 Review.
-
Methodological issues of confounding in analytical epidemiologic studies.Caspian J Intern Med. 2012 Summer;3(3):488-95. Caspian J Intern Med. 2012. PMID: 24009920 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Cornfield J, Haenszel W, Hammond EC, et al. . Smoking and lung cancer: recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22(1):173–203. - PubMed
-
- Pearl J, Mackenzie D. The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2018.
-
- Ding P, VanderWeele TJ. Generalized Cornfield conditions for the risk difference. Biometrika. 2014;101(4):971–977.
-
- Schlesselman JJ. Assessing effects of confounding variables. Am J Epidemiol. 1978;108(1):3–8. - PubMed
-
- VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-value. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(4):268–274. - PubMed