You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Nutrients
  • Reply
  • Open Access

26 October 2018

Reply: On the Reporting of Odds Ratios and Risk Ratios, Nutrients 2018, 10, 10

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Dipartimento Donna-Bambino-Neonato, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy
2
Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy
3
Infertility Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Dear Editor,

In response to the letter of Pace and Multani, in general, we cannot disagree with their considerations about the use of odds ratios, risk ratios, and rate ratios.
In the first version of the paper, our results were reported as odds ratios. Dr. Pace, one of the two reviewers, requested a new analysis more adequate to the prospective design of the study. Although all estimates were not far from unit and odds ratios were good estimates of both risk ratios and rate ratios, we agreed to that request and reported our results as rate ratios.
It was not the first time that, in the framework of assisted reproduction techniques, rate ratios have been calculated instead of risk ratios. Such a use is due to the fact that, implicitly, a cycle of ART is considered a unit of time, thus leading to the consideration of the proportion of failure or success as a rate [1,2]. In such a situation, rate ratios and risk ratios are equal.
The conclusions of our study did not change when we changed the analysis: Odds ratios and rate ratios for the three outcomes are reported in the Table 1. What we forgot to modify was the statistical methods, where “logistic regression” was left instead of “Cox regression”. For this reason, we apologize both to the Journal and to the readers.
Table 1. Odds ratios and rate ratios for the three outcomes.
We should have been more explicit about these aspects of the statistical methodology, but, as the revised version was approved and published, we thought that it was clear enough. Presumably, Dr. Pace did not even see the second version, or he would have asked a further revision.

References

  1. Razaz, N.; Avitan, T.; Ting, J.; Pressey, T.; Joseph, K.S. Perinatal outcomes in multifetal pregnancy following fetal reduction. CMAJ 2017, 189, E652–E658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Chen, Z.J.; Shi, Y.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, B.; Liang, X.; Cao, Y.; Yang, J.; Liu, J.; Wei, D.; Weng, N.; et al. Fresh versus Frozen Embryos for Infertility in the Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 523–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.