Cited by 898Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and Inference

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sparse data bias: a problem hiding in plain sight

Open access
Greenland, Sander, Mansournia, Mohammad Ali, Altman, Douglas G·2016·BMJ

Abstract

Effects of treatment or other exposure on outcome events are commonly measured by ratios of risks, rates, or odds. Adjusted versions of these measures are usually estimated by maximum likelihood regression (eg, logistic, Poisson, or Cox modelling). But resulting estimates of effect measures can have serious bias when the data lack adequate case numbers for some combination of exposure and outcome levels. This bias can occur even in quite large datasets and is hence often termed sparse data bias. The bias can arise or be worsened by regression adjustment for potentially confounding variables; in the extreme, the resulting estimates could be impossibly huge or even infinite values that are meaningless artefacts of data sparsity. Such estimate inflation might be obvious in light of background information, but is rarely noted let alone accounted for in research reports. We outline simple methods for detecting and dealing with the problem focusing especially on penalised estimation, which can be easily performed with common software packages.

Overview

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 · 10.1136/bmj.i1981

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 38 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Glymour MM, Greenland S. Causal diagrams. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, eds. Modern Epidemiology.3rd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008: 183-209.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 893

Metadata

Authors
Greenland, S., Mansournia, M. A., & Altman, D. G.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-04-27
Volume
352
Pages
i1981
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2343557095
Cited by
898
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 77 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 94 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 98 · 2020: 99 · 2019: 80 · 2018: 75 · 2017: 109 · 2016: 8
FWCI
91.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
Keywords
relative risk, odds ratio, rate ratios, confounding adjustment
MeSH terms
Humans, Bias, Likelihood Functions, Odds Ratio, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Sample Size, Risk Assessment, Quality Improvement

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