English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The relative risk is a clinically important measure of the effect of treatment on binary outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An adjusted relative risk can be estimated using log binomial regression; however, convergence problems are common with this model. While alternative methods have been proposed for estimating relative risks, comparisons between methods have been limited, particularly in the context of RCTs. We compare ten different methods for estimating relative risks under a variety of scenarios relevant to RCTs with independent observations. Results of a large simulation study show that some methods may fail to overcome the convergence problems of log binomial regression, while others may substantially overestimate the treatment effect or produce inaccurate confidence intervals. Further, conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment may differ depending on the method used. We give recommendations for choosing a method for estimating relative risks in the context of RCTs with independent observations.

Relative Risk Estimation in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Comparison of Methods for Independent Observations