Efficiency Loss from Categorizing Quantitative Exposures into Qualitative Exposures in Case-Control Studies
Abstract
In the analysis of data from case-control studies, quantitative exposure variables are frequently categorized into qualitative exposure variables, such as quarters. The qualitative exposure variables may be scalar variables that take the median values of each quantile interval, or they may be vectors of indicator variables that represent each quantile interval. In a qualitative analysis, the scalar variables may be used to test the dose-response relation, while the indicator variables may be used to estimate odds ratios for each higher quantile interval versus the lowest. Qualitative analysis, implicitly and explicitly documented by many epidemiologists and biostatisticians, has several desirable advantages (including simple interpretation and robustness in the presence of a misspecified model or outlier values). In a quantitative analysis, the quantitative exposure variables may be directly regressed to test the dose-response relation, as well as to estimate odds ratios of interest. As this paper demonstrates, quantitative analysis is generally more efficient than qualitative analysis. Through a Monte Carlo simulation study, the authors estimated the loss of efficiency that results from categorizing a quantitative exposure variable by quartiles in case-control studies with a total of 200 cases and 200 controls. In the analysis of the dose-response relation, this loss is about 30% or more; the percentage may reach about 50% when the odds ratio for the fourth quartile interval versus the lowest is around 4. In estimating odds ratios, the loss of efficiency for the second, third, and fourth quartile intervals versus the lowest is around 90%, 75%, and 40%, respectively. The authors consider the pros and cons of each analytic approach, and they recommend that 1) qualitative analysis be used initially to estimate the odds ratios for each higher quantile interval versus the lowest to examine the dose-response relation and determine the appropriateness of the assumed underlying model; and 2) quantitative analysis be used to test the dose-response relation under a plausible log odds ratio model.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Grouping continuous data loses information and may reduce statistical power, especially when dichotomization is used.
“However, grouping loses information and may reduce statistical power [ 87 ] especially when dichotomization is used [ 82 , 85 , 88 ].”
From Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007) · cites this paper as [88]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 · Cited by 8,613 · see citing works
“However, grouping loses information and may reduce statistical power [87] especially when dichotomization is used [82,85,88].”
Vandenbroucke, J. P., Elm, E. V., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010-w1 · Cited by 3,543 · see citing works
Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., & Egger, M. (2014) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.014 · Cited by 2,969 · see citing works
Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., & Egger, M. (2007) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e3181577511 · Cited by 2,779 · see citing works
The use of fractional polynomials to model continuous risk variables in epidemiology
Royston, P., Ambler, G., & Sauerbrei, W. (1999) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/28.5.964 · Cited by 1,066 · see citing works
Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice.
Pocock, S. J., Collier, T. J., Dandreo, K. J., de Stavola, B. L., Goldman, M. B., Kalish, L. A., Kasten, L. E., & McCormack, V. A. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38250.571088.55 · Cited by 313 · see citing works
de Vienne, C. M., Creveuil, C., & Dreyfus, M. (2009) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.08.006 · Cited by 215 · see citing works
Allison, D., Gallagher, D., Heo, M., Pi-Sunyer, F., & Heymsfield, S. (1997) · International Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0800423 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zhao, L. P., & Kolonel, L. N.
- Affiliations
- University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zhao, Lue Ping
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1992-08-15
- Volume
- 136
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 464-474
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- OpenAlex
- W1935655485
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 0.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (P01CA 33619, P01CA033619)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- efficiency loss, case-control study, dose-response relationship, odds ratio, dummy variables, model misspecification, Monte Carlo simulation
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Models, Statistical, Odds Ratio, Case-Control Studies
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