
If not, can the infrequency of Poisson regressions with relative risks in the medical literature be attributed mostly to a lag between methodological theory and practice among scientists, clinicians, statisticians, and epidemiologists?. Is there good reason to report odds ratios from logistic regressions rather than relative risks from Poisson regressions?. 1998 Nov 18 280(19):1690-1.įrom reading the medical literature, among cohort studies with binary outcomes it seems that it is still far more common to report odds ratios from logistic regressions rather than relative risks from Poisson regressions. and Yu K.F., What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes, JAMA.
2011 Nov 8.įrom Poisson regression, relative risks can be reported, which some have argued are easier to interpret compared with odds ratios, especially for frequent outcomes, and especially by individuals without a strong background in statistics. and Donner A., Extension of the modified Poisson regression model to prospective studies with correlated binary data, Stat Methods Med Res.
Zou G., A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data, Am J Epidemiol. Greenland S., Model-based estimation of relative risks and other epidemiologic measures in studies of common outcomes and in case-control studies, Am J Epidemiol. robust sandwich variance estimator), it provides valid risk estimates and confidence levels. However, Poisson regression (and related: quasi-Poisson, negative binomial, etc.) can also be used to model data with binary outcomes and, with appropriate methods (e.g. Undergraduate and graduate statistics and epidemiology courses, in my experience, generally teach that logistic regression should be used for modelling data with binary outcomes, with risk estimates reported as odds ratios. Why is it more common for logistic regression (with odds ratios) to be used in cohort studies with binary outcomes, as opposed to Poisson regression (with relative risks)?