2000
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(20000430)19:8<1089::aid-sim411>3.0.co;2-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of several procedures to estimate the confidence interval for attributable risk in case-control studies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
31
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
1
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In order to estimate the 99% CIs for ARp, we used a method proposed by Greenland,20 which is based on the Mantel–Haenszel estimation and is consistent for sparse data as found in individually matched studies. Since it exists several variance formulas in the literature, we also derived 99% CIs using the bootstrap method,35 and results were very similar (see online supplementary material). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…In order to estimate the 99% CIs for ARp, we used a method proposed by Greenland,20 which is based on the Mantel–Haenszel estimation and is consistent for sparse data as found in individually matched studies. Since it exists several variance formulas in the literature, we also derived 99% CIs using the bootstrap method,35 and results were very similar (see online supplementary material). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…We used bootstrap sampling, as applied to data collected under a case–control design, to estimate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the crude PAFs and aaPAFs [71]. All CIs were truncated at zero under the assumption that elimination of a potential risk factor would not increase the number of cases of HLHS or TOF.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We calculated attributable risk from estimated odds ratios and prevalence rates for each of 2000 replications. The 95% confidence interval limits were the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the bootstrap distribution, which avoids any normality assumption 18 19. In the absence of certainty regarding the confounding role of certain cofactors, we propose a double estimation, adjusted for all the cofactors used in the analysis, or on cannabis and alcohol alone (and other drugs, when appropriate).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%