Abstract
Abstract We discuss the problem of describing multiple group comparisons in survival analysis using the Cox model, and in matched case‐control studies. The standard method of comparing the risk in each group with a baseline group is unsatisfactory because the standard errors and confidence limits relate to correlated parameters, all dependent on precision within the baseline group. We describe the construction of standard errors for the parameters of all groups, without the need to select a baseline group. These standard errors can be regarded as relating to roughly independent parameters, so that groups can be compared efficiently without knowledge of the covariances. The method should assist in graphical presentation of relative risks, and in the combination of results from published studies. Two examples are presented.
Keywords
Baseline (sea)Confidence intervalStatisticsGroup (periodic table)Relative riskAbsolute risk reductionStandard errorComputer scienceMathematics
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Estimating Mean and Standard Deviation from the Sample Size, Three Quartiles, Minimum, and Maximum
Background: We sometimes want to include in a meta-analysis data from studies where results are presented as medians and ranges or interquartile ranges rather than as means and ...
Does the Relation of Blood Pressure to Coronary Heart Disease Risk Change With Aging?
Background —We examined the relative importance of diastolic (DBP), systolic (SBP) and pulse pressure (PP) as predictors of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk in different age gr...
Conclusions beyond support: overconfident estimates in mixed models
Mixed-effect models are frequently used to control for the nonindependence of data points, for example, when repeated measures from the same individuals are available. The aim o...
Unpublished rating scales: A major source of bias in randomised controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia
Background A recent review suggested an association between using unpublished scales in clinical trials and finding significant results. Aims To determine whether such an associ...
Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife
We discuss the following problem: given a random sample $\\mathbf{X} = (X_1, X_2, \\cdots, X_n)$ from an unknown probability distribution $F$, estimate the sampling distribution...
Publication Info
- Year
- 1991
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1025-1035
- Citations
- 429
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Altmetric
PlumX Metrics
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
429
OpenAlex
Cite This
D.F. Easton,
J Peto,
Abdel G. Babiker
(1991).
Floating absolute risk: An alternative to relative risk in survival and case‐control analysis avoiding an arbitrary reference group.
Statistics in Medicine
, 10
(7)
, 1025-1035.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780100703
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1002/sim.4780100703