1 / 20

Chapter 19 Stratified 2-by-2 Tables

Chapter 19 Stratified 2-by-2 Tables. In Chapter 19:. 19.1 Preventing Confounding 19.2 Simpson’s Paradox (Severe Confounding) 19.3 Mantel-Haenszel Methods 19.4 Interaction. Confounding ≡ a distortion in an association brought about by extraneous variables

verena
Download Presentation

Chapter 19 Stratified 2-by-2 Tables

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Chapter 19Stratified 2-by-2 Tables

  2. In Chapter 19: • 19.1 Preventing Confounding • 19.2 Simpson’s Paradox (Severe Confounding) • 19.3 Mantel-Haenszel Methods • 19.4 Interaction

  3. Confounding≡ adistortion in an association brought about by extraneous variables Variables E = exposure variableD = disease variableC = confounding variable Confounder word origin: “to mix together,” the effects of the confounder gets mixed up with the effects of the exposure §19.1 Confounding

  4. Properties of confounding variables • Associated with exposure • Independent risk factor • Not in causal pathway

  5. Example Does helicopter evaluations (“exposure”) decrease the risk of death (“disease”) following accidents? Crude comparison ≡ head-to-head comparison without consideration of extraneous factors. Can we conclude that helicopter evacuation is 35% riskier?

  6. Confounder = Severity of Accident Stratify by the confounding variable:

  7. Accident Evacuation Serious Accidents Among serious accidents, the risk of death was decreased by 20% with helicopter evacuation.

  8. Accident Evacuation Minor Accidents Among minor accidents, the risk of death was also decreased by 20%.

  9. Accident EvacuationProperties of Confounding Seriousness of accident Death Evacuation method

  10. Since the RRs were the same in the both subgroups (RR1 = RR2 = 0.8), combine the strata-specific RR to derive a single summary measure of association, i.e., the summary RR for helicopter evacuation is 0.80, since it decreases the risk of death by 20% in both circumstances Summary Relative Risk This summary RR has “adjusted” for severity of accident

  11. Summary Relative Risk • In practice, the strata-specific results won’t be so easily summarized • Most common method for summarizing multiple 2-by-2 tables is the Mantel-Haenszel method • Formulas in text • Use SPSS or WinPEPI > Compare2 for data analysis William Haenszel Nathan Mantel

  12. Summary Estimates with WinPEPI > Compare2 >A. Input Output RR-hatM-H = 0.80 (95% CI for RR: 0.63 – 1.02)

  13. Summary Hypothesis Test with WinPEPI > Compare2 >A. • Null hypothesisH0: no association in population (e.g., RRM-H = 1) • Test statistics: WinPEPI > Compare2 > A. > Stratified  see prior slide for data input • Interpretation: the usual, i.e., P value as measure of evidence χ2 = 3.46, df = 1, P = .063  pretty good evidence for difference in survival rates

  14. Mantel-Haenszel methods are available for odds ratio, rate ratios, and risk difference Same principles of confounder analysis and stratification apply Covered in text, but not in this presentation M-H Methods for Other Measures of Association I’m back I’m back

  15. Interaction (Effect Measure Modification) • When we see different effects within subgroups, a statistical interaction is said to exist • Interaction = Heterogeneity of the effect measures • Do not use M-H summaries with heterogeneity  would hide the non-uniformity

  16. Example: Case-Cntl Data E= Asbestos D = Lung CA C = Smoking Too heterogeneous to summarize with a single OR

  17. Test for InteractionHypothesis Statements • H0: no interaction vs. Ha: interaction • For case-control study with two strataH0:OR1= OR2vs. Ha:OR1 ≠OR2

  18. Test for InteractionTest Statistics Use WinPEPI > Compare2 > A. > Stratified  … OR-hat2 = 2 OR-hat1 = 60 Output:

  19. Test for InteractionInterpretation The test of H0:OR1= OR2vs. Ha:OR1 ≠OR2 χ2 = 21.38, df = 1, P = 0.0000038.  Conclude: Good evidence for interaction Report strata-specific results: OR is smokers is 60 OR in nonsmokers is 2

  20. Strategy Let MA ≡ Measure of Association (RR, OR, etc.)

More Related