Cited by 167Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Making apples from oranges: Comparing noncollapsible effect estimators and their standard errors after adjustment for different covariate sets

Open access
Daniel, Rhian, Zhang, Jingjing, Farewell, Daniel·2021·Biometrical Journal

Abstract

We revisit the well‐known but often misunderstood issue of (non)collapsibility of effect measures in regression models for binary and time‐to‐event outcomes. We describe an existing simple but largely ignored procedure for marginalizing estimates of conditional odds ratios and propose a similar procedure for marginalizing estimates of conditional hazard ratios (allowing for right censoring), demonstrating its performance in simulation studies and in a reanalysis of data from a small randomized trial in primary biliary cirrhosis patients. In addition, we aim to provide an educational summary of issues surrounding (non)collapsibility from a causal inference perspective and to promote the idea that the words conditional and adjusted (likewise marginal and unadjusted ) should not be used interchangeably.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bimj.201900297

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 62 · Cited by 167

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Authors
Daniel, R., Zhang, J., & Farewell, D.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Daniel, Rhian
Venue
Biometrical Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-12-14
Volume
63
Issue
3
Pages
528-557
ISSN
  • 0323-3847 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-4036
OpenAlex
W3112557274
Cited by
167
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 1
FWCI
11.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biometrical Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (/Z/15/Z, 107617/Z/15/Z)
  • Royal Society (107617/Z/15/Z)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
collapsibility, standard errors, covariate adjustment, binary outcomes, time-to-event outcomes, right censoring, causal inference, primary biliary cirrhosis
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Humans, Proportional Hazards Models, Odds Ratio

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review