Let us not rush back to odds ratios without a recommendation to convert them to interpretable measures

Doi et al.1 suggest that odds ratios should be preferred over relative risks in meta-analyses. While I do not doubt the mathematical justifications in their article, their reasoning is mainly based on an argument which ignores the reality of systematic reviews. Their main argument is that relative risks in contrast to odds ratios depend on the prevalence of the outcome. But even if meta-analysts derive relative risks from odds ratios, they again almost always use the average prevalence in the control groups of the trials for their calculations.

Source: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology - February 25, 2021 Category: Epidemiology Authors: Prof. Stefan Leucht Tags: Letter to the editor Source Type: research