Exploring interaction effects in small samples increases rates of false-positive and false-negative findings: Results from a systematic review and simulation study

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 67, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 821-829

  Schmidt, Amand F ^a,b,c   Groenwold, Rolf H H ^a,b   Knol, Mirjam J ^a,d   Hoes, Arno W ^a   Nielen, Mirjam ^c   Roes, Kit C B ^a   De Boer, Anthonius ^b   Klungel, Olaf H ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Effect modification; Epidemiologic methods; Interaction; Odds ratio; Relative excess risk due to interaction; Review; Risk ratio; Simulation; Statistics; Subgroups

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; LABORATORY TEST; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; SAMPLE SIZE; SCORING SYSTEM; SIMULATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

EFFECT MODIFICATION; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; INTERACTION; ODDS RATIO; RELATIVE EXCESS RISK DUE TO INTERACTION; REVIEW; RISK RATIO; SIMULATION; STATISTICS; SUBGROUPS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; ODDS RATIO; RISK; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84902545752     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.02.008     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. J.S. Berger, M.C. Roncaglioni, F. Avanzini, I. Pangrazzi, G. Tognoni, and D.L. Brown Aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in women and men: a sex-specific meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials JAMA 295 2006 306 313
2. D. Moher, S. Hopewell, K.F. Schulz, V. Montori, P.C. Gotzsche, and P.J. Devereaux et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials J Clin Epidemiol 63 2010 e1 37
3. D.G. Altman, and J.M. Bland Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates BMJ 326 2003 219
4. K.J. Rothman Epidemiology: an introduction 2002 Oxford University Press New York
5. I.R. White, and D. Elbourne Assessing subgroup effects with binary data: can the use of different effect measures lead to different conclusions? BMC Med Res Methodol 5 2005 15
6. S.R. Paul, and A. Donner Small sample performance of tests of homogeneity of odds ratios in K 2 × 2 tables Stat Med 11 1992 159 165
7. S.R. Paul, and A. Donner A comparison of tests of homogeneity of odds ratios in K 2 × 2 tables Stat Med 8 1989 1455 1468
8. S. Greenland Tests for interaction in epidemiologic studies: a review and a study of power Stat Med 2 1983 243 251
9. M.P. Jones, T.W. O'Gorman, J.H. Lemke, and R.F. Woolson A Monte Carlo investigation of homogeneity tests of the odds ratio under various sample size configurations Biometrics 45 1989 171 181
10. T.W. O'Gorman, R.F. Woolson, M.P. Jones, and J.H. Lemke Statistical analysis of K 2 × 2 tables: a comparative study of estimators/test statistics for association and homogeneity Environ Health Perspect 87 1990 103 107
11. I.M. Reis, K.F. Hirji, and A.A. Afifi Exact and asymptotic tests for homogeneity in several 2 × 2 tables Stat Med 18 1999 893 906
12. Scopus. Available at www.scopus.com. Accessed September 12, 2011.
13. F. Cribari-Neto, and W. Silva A new heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator for the linear regression model AStA Adv Stat Anal 95 2011 129 146
14. G.Y. Zou On the estimation of additive interaction by use of the four-by-two table and beyond Am J Epidemiol 168 2008 212 224
15. S.R. Lipsitz, K.B. Dear, N.M. Laird, and G. Molenberghs Tests for homogeneity of the risk difference when data are sparse Biometrics 54 1998 148 160
16. R Development Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2009 R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria
17. M.D. Hogan, L.L. Kupper, B.M. Most, and J.K. Haseman Alternatives to Rothman's approach for assessing synergism (or antagonism) in cohort studies Am J Epidemiol 108 1978 60 67
18. S.F. Assmann, D.W. Hosmer, S. Lemeshow, and K.A. Mundt Confidence intervals for measures of interaction Epidemiology 7 1996 286 290
19. K.J. Lui, and C. Kelly A revisit on tests for homogeneity of the risk difference Biometrics 56 2000 309 315
20. L. Zhang, H. Yang, and I. Cho Test homogeneity of risk difference across subgroups in clinical trials J Biopharm Stat 19 1 2009 67 76
21. B. Takkouche, C. Cadarso-Suarez, and D. Spiegelman Evaluation of old and new tests of heterogeneity in epidemiologic meta-analysis Am J Epidemiol 150 1999 206 215
22. Z. Bagheri, S.M. Ayatollahi, and P. Jafari Comparison of three tests of homogeneity of odds ratios in multicenter trials with unequal sample sizes within and among centers BMC Med Res Methodol 11 2011 58
23. J.R. Starr, and B. McKnight Assessing interaction in case-control studies: type I errors when using both additive and multiplicative scales Epidemiology 15 2004 422 427
24. M.J. Knol, T.J. VanderWeele, R.H. Groenwold, O.H. Klungel, M.M. Rovers, and D.E. Grobbee Estimating measures of interaction on an additive scale for preventive exposures Eur J Epidemiol 26 6 2011 433 438
25. A.R. Localio, D.J. Margolis, and J.A. Berlin Relative risks and confidence intervals were easily computed indirectly from multivariable logistic regression J Clin Epidemiol 60 2007 874 882
26. P.C. Austin Absolute risk reductions, relative risks, relative risk reductions, and numbers needed to treat can be obtained from a logistic regression model J Clin Epidemiol 63 2010 2 6
27. P.C. Austin, and A. Laupacis A tutorial on methods to estimating clinically and policy-meaningful measures of treatment effects in prospective observational studies: a review Int J Biostat 7 1 2011 6