--- Marcello Pagano <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree wholeheartedly that the risk difference is sometimes
> preferable to the odds ratio. Witness what is currently going on with
> the attack on Avandia. Rather than report a risk difference of 0.2%
> in the MI rate, we are faced with a risk INCREASE of 40% -- the
> effect of going from 0.5% to 0.7%. If reported as a risk difference
> it would probably not have made the headlines it has nor created the
> furor it has.
At this point I think that there is room for improvement in Stata
output. When reporting odds ratios after -logit-, Stata will not report
the baseline odds (-exp(_cons)-), So Stata reports that the odds
increased with 40%, but not that the baseline odds is .005 (at these
low probabilities risks and odds are almost the same). I would like to
see the baseline odds and the odds ratios, because both give very
useful information about the size of the effect, as Marcello's
example illustrates.
-- Maarten
-----------------------------------------
Maarten L. Buis
Department of Social Research Methodology
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Boelelaan 1081
1081 HV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
visiting address:
Buitenveldertselaan 3 (Metropolitan), room Z434
+31 20 5986715
http://home.fsw.vu.nl/m.buis/
-----------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
