Abstract
In 1953, Morton Levin introduced a simple approach to estimating population attributable fractions (PAF) depending only on risk factor prevalence and relative risk. This formula and its extensions are still in widespread use today, particularly to estimate PAF in populations where individual data is unavailable. Unfortunately, Levin’s approach is known to be asymptotically biased for the PAF when the risk factor-disease relationship is confounded even if relative risks that are correctly adjusted for confounding are used in the estimator.
An alternative estimator, first introduced by Miettinen in 1972, is unbiased for the PAF provided the true relative risk is invariant across confounder strata. However, despite its statistical superiority, Miettinen’s estimator is seldom used in practice, as its direct application requires an estimate of risk factor prevalence within disease cases rather than an estimate of risk factor prevalence in the general population.
Here we describe a simple re-expression of Miettinen’s estimand that depends on the causal relative risk, the unadjusted relative risk and the population risk factor prevalence. While this re-expression is not new, it has been underappreciated in the literature, and the associated estimator may be useful in estimating PAF in populations when individual data is unavailable provided estimated adjusted and unadjusted relative risks can be transported to the population of interest. Using the re-expressed estimand, we develop novel analytic formulae for the relative and absolute asymptotic bias in Levin’s formula, solidifying earlier work by Darrow and Steenland that used simulations to investigate this bias. We extend all results to settings with non-binary valued risk factors and continuous exposures and discuss the utility of these results in estimating PAF in practice.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the grant EIA-2017-017 from the Health Research Board in Ireland
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The title of the manuscript has been changed, and some content changed based on initial review and recent additions to the literature
1 Note that (5) is technically the relative difference (or error) between the estimands PAFL and PAF. However, if statistically consistent estimates of RRC and π are plugged in to Levin’s formula, (5) will represent the asymptotic bias of the resulting estimator. As a result, we will (somewhat informally) refer to (5) and comparable quantities as biases throughout the manuscript.
