Cited by 1,952Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

How Big is a Big Odds Ratio? Interpreting the Magnitudes of Odds Ratios in Epidemiological Studies

Chen, Henian, Cohen, Patricia, Chen, Sophie·2010·Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation

Abstract

The odds ratio (OR) is probably the most widely used index of effect size in epidemiological studies. The difficulty of interpreting the OR has troubled many clinical researchers and epidemiologists for a long time. We propose a new method for interpreting the size of the OR by relating it to differences in a normal standard deviate. Our calculations indicate that OR = 1.68, 3.47, and 6.71 are equivalent to Cohen's d = 0.2 (small), 0.5 (medium), and 0.8 (large), respectively, when disease rate is 1% in the nonexposed group; Cohen's d < 0.2 when OR <1.5, and Cohen's d > 0.8 when OR > 5.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03610911003650383

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Outcomes based on continuous data and reported as Hedges g appeared to generate larger effect sizes compared with dichotomous scoring, reported as OR.

    “Although the effect sizes of Hedges g and OR can be difficult to compare, outcomes based on continuous data and reported as Hedges g, appeared to generate larger effect sizes compared with dichotomous scoring, reported as OR [91].”
  • The mentoring structures and outcomes of the students in the study differed based on their gender and race/ethnicity, although the sizes of these differences were small.

    “The mentoring structures and outcomes of the students in our study differed based on their gender and race/ethnicity, although the sizes of these differences were small (Cohen, 1992; Chen et al., 2010).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, H., Cohen, P., & Chen, S.
Affiliations
  • Winthrop-University Hospital (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • Health Canada (CA)
Corresponding author
Chen, Henian
Venue
Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation
Published
2010-03-31
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
860-864
ISSN
  • 0361-0918 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-4141
OpenAlex
W2029059557
Cited by
1,952
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 170 · 2025: 201 · 2024: 259 · 2023: 234 · 2022: 254 · 2021: 242 · 2020: 196 · 2019: 123 · 2018: 93 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
odds ratio, effect size interpretation, Cohen's d, standardized mean difference, disease incidence

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