The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Big is a Big Odds Ratio? Interpreting the Magnitudes of Odds Ratios in Epidemiological Studies
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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].”
From The psychological subtype of intimate partner violence and its effect on mental health: a systematic review with meta-analyses (2022) · cites this paper as [91]
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Race and Gender Differences in Undergraduate Research Mentoring Structures and Research Outcomes (2017) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2010
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000) · doi:10.1002/0471722146 · Cited by 20,302
Statistics Notes: The odds ratio
Bland, J. M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7247.1468 · Cited by 1,298
Davies, H. T. O., Crombie, I. K., & Tavakoli, M. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7136.989 · Cited by 991
Meehl, P. E. (1990) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0102_1 · Cited by 673
Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analyses of randomized trials
Sinclair, J. C., & Bracken, M. B. (1994) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)90191-0 · Cited by 271
Deeks, J. J., Bracken, M. B., Sinclair, J. C., Davies, H. T. O., Tavakoli, M., & Crombie, I. K. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7166.1155a · Cited by 225
Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., & Welch, H. G. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199907223410411 · Cited by 195
Sackett, D. L., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (1996) · BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/ebm.1996.1.164 · Cited by 178
Odds ratios should be avoided when events are common
Altman, D. G., Deeks, J. J., & Sackett, D. L. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.317.7168.1318 · Cited by 172
Estimating Risk and Rate Levels, Ratios and Differences\nin Case-Control Studies
King, G., & Zeng, L. (2002) · Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) · Cited by 154
The scandal of poor epidemiological research: ***
von Elm, E. B., & Egger, M. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7471.868 · Cited by 134
Reconsidering the odds ratio as a measure of 2×2 association in a population
KRAEMER, H. C. (2004) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1714 · Cited by 87
A deficiency of the odds ratio as a measure of effect size
Newcombe, R. G. (2006) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2683 · Cited by 75
Biased odds ratios from dichotomization of age
Chen, H., Cohen, P. R., & Chen, S. (2006) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2737 · Cited by 72
Self-citationEpidemiology in the 21st century: calculation, communication, and intervention.
Koplan, J. P., Thacker, S. B., & Lezin, N. A. (1999) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.89.8.1153 · Cited by 25
How the Reflection of Linear Correlation in Odds Ratios Depends on the Cut-Off Points
Cohen, P. R., & Chen, H. (2009) · Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation · doi:10.1080/03610910802592820 · Cited by 7
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 10.1002/sim.1032 · DOI
- Sackett D. L., 1996, Evid. Base. Med., 1, 164
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Long-term outcomes of childhood sexual abuse: an umbrella review
Hailes, H. P., Yu, R., Danese, A., & Fazel, S. (2019) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30286-x · Cited by 827
Gender differences in the prevalence of nonsuicidal self-injury: A meta-analysis
Bresin, K., & Schoenleber, M. (2015) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2015.02.009 · Cited by 678
“The results of the overall meta-analysis suggest that the odds of engaging in NSSI for women are higher than that for men, though with an effect size considered small in epidemiological studies (Chen et al., 2010).”
Gomila, R. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000920 · Cited by 565
Ludwig, L., Pasman, J. A., Nicholson, T., Aybek, S., David, A. S., Tuck, S., Kanaan, R. A., Roelofs, K., Carson, A., & Stone, J. (2018) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(18)30051-8 · Cited by 495
Hearing Loss and Depression in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Lawrence, B. J., Jayakody, D. M. P., Bennett, R. J., Eikelboom, R. H., Gasson, N., & Friedland, P. L. (2019) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gnz009 · Cited by 440
Metadata
- 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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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
