The Effect of Ignoring Statistical Interactions in Regression Analyses Conducted in Epidemiologic Studies: An Example with Survival Analysis Using Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model

  • KP V
  • M L
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
66Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To demonstrate the adverse impact of ignoring statistical interactions in regression models used in epidemiologic studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Based on different scenarios that involved known values for coefficient of the interaction term in Cox regression models we generated 1000 samples of size 600 each. The simulated samples and a real life data set from the Cameron County Hispanic Cohort were used to evaluate the effect of ignoring statistical interactions in these models. RESULTS Compared to correctly specified Cox regression models with interaction terms, misspecified models without interaction terms resulted in up to 8.95 fold bias in estimated regression coefficients. Whereas when data were generated from a perfect additive Cox proportional hazards regression model the inclusion of the interaction between the two covariates resulted in only 2% estimated bias in main effect regression coefficients estimates, but did not alter the main findings of no significant interactions. CONCLUSIONS When the effects are synergic, the failure to account for an interaction effect could lead to bias and misinterpretation of the results, and in some instances to incorrect policy decisions. Best practices in regression analysis must include identification of interactions, including for analysis of data from epidemiologic studies.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

KP, V., & M, L. (2016). The Effect of Ignoring Statistical Interactions in Regression Analyses Conducted in Epidemiologic Studies: An Example with Survival Analysis Using Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model. Epidemiology: Open Access, 06(01). https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-1165.1000216

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 30

67%

Researcher 9

20%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

9%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 14

44%

Psychology 7

22%

Social Sciences 6

19%

Engineering 5

16%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free