Making apples from oranges: Comparing noncollapsible effect estimators and their standard errors after adjustment for different covariate sets
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Covariate adjustment of logistic regression models changes the parameter to be estimated due to non-collapsibility.
“It should be noted that the covariate adjustment of logistic regression models will change the parameter to be estimated (“non-collapsibility”). In each case, the probability parameters refer to subgroups of participants who have the same expression of the variable to which conditionalization is applied [50].”
From EFFects of Exposure and Cognitive behavioral Therapy for chronic BACK pain (“EFFECT-BACK”): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [50]
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
- 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
- PMC
- PMC7986756
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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