Home LiteratureArticle Details
PMID: 27881078 Published · epublish English Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

No rationale for 1 variable per 10 events criterion for binary logistic regression analysis.

BMC medical research methodology ·Vol. 16 ·No. 1 ·2016-00-24 ·Pages 163

van Smeden M, de Groot JA, Moons KG, Collins GS, Altman DG, Eijkemans MJ, Reitsma JB

Abstract

Ten events per variable (EPV) is a widely advocated minimal criterion for sample size considerations in logistic regression analysis. Of three previous simulation studies that examined this minimal EPV criterion only one supports the use of a minimum of 10 EPV. In this paper, we examine the reasons for substantial differences between these extensive simulation studies. The current study uses Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate small sample bias, coverage of confidence intervals and mean square error of logit coefficients. Logistic regression models fitted by maximum likelihood and a modified estimation procedure, known as Firth's correction, are compared. The results show that besides EPV, the problems associated with low EPV depend on other factors such as the total sample size. It is also demonstrated that simulation results can be dominated by even a few simulated data sets for which the prediction of the outcome by the covariates is perfect ('separation'). We reveal that different approaches for identifying and handling separation leads to substantially different simulation results. We further show that Firth's correction can be used to improve the accuracy of regression coefficients and alleviate the problems associated with separation. The current evidence supporting EPV rules for binary logistic regression is weak. Given our findings, there is an urgent need for new research to provide guidance for supporting sample size considerations for binary logistic regression analysis.

Keywords
Bias EPV Logistic regression Sample size Separation Simulations
MeSH Terms
Bias Computer Simulation Humans Logistic Models Monte Carlo Method Reproducibility of Results Sample Size
Authors & Affiliations
7 authors, click to expand affiliations / ORCID
van Smeden Maarten ORCID
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, The Netherlands. [email protected].
de Groot Joris A H
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Moons Karel G M
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Collins Gary S
Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Altman Douglas G
Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Eijkemans Marinus J C
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Reitsma Johannes B
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
References (20)
20 references, click to expand
  1. Prognostic modelling with logistic regression analysis: a comparison of selection and estimation methods in small data sets.
    Stat Med. 2000 Apr 30;19(8):1059-79 PMID: 10790680
  2. How to develop a more accurate risk prediction model when there are few events.
    BMJ. 2016 Jun 08;353:i3235 PMID: 27278096
  3. A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression.
    Stat Med. 2002 Aug 30;21(16):2409-19 PMID: 12210625
  4. A comparative investigation of methods for logistic regression with separated or nearly separated data.
    Stat Med. 2006 Dec 30;25(24):4216-26 PMID: 16955543
  5. Simplifying a prognostic model: a simulation study based on clinical data.
    Stat Med. 2002 Dec 30;21(24):3803-22 PMID: 12483768
  6. Confidence intervals for multinomial logistic regression in sparse data.
    Stat Med. 2007 Feb 20;26(4):903-18 PMID: 16489602
  7. Regression modelling strategies for improved prognostic prediction.
    Stat Med. 1984 Apr-Jun;3(2):143-52 PMID: 6463451
  8. Small-sample bias of point estimators of the odds ratio from matched sets.
    Biometrics. 1984 Jun;40(2):421-35 PMID: 6487726
  9. Performance of logistic regression modeling: beyond the number of events per variable, the role of data structure.
    J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Sep;64(9):993-1000 PMID: 21411281
  10. Logistic regression modeling and the number of events per variable: selection bias dominates.
    J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1464-5; author reply 1463-4 PMID: 22032755
  11. The design of simulation studies in medical statistics.
    Stat Med. 2006 Dec 30;25(24):4279-92 PMID: 16947139
  12. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model?
    Stat Med. 2000 Feb 29;19(4):453-73 PMID: 10694730
  13. Jackknife bias reduction for polychotomous logistic regression.
    Stat Med. 1997 Mar 15;16(5):545-60 PMID: 9089962
  14. Substantial effective sample sizes were required for external validation studies of predictive logistic regression models.
    J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 May;58(5):475-83 PMID: 15845334
  15. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration.
    Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jan 6;162(1):W1-73 PMID: 25560730
  16. Bias in odds ratios by logistic regression modelling and sample size.
    BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Jul 27;9:56 PMID: 19635144
  17. On the bias of various estimators of the logit and its variance with application to quantal bioassay.
    Biometrika. 1967 Jun;54(1):181-7 PMID: 6049534
  18. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis.
    J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Dec;49(12):1373-9 PMID: 8970487
  19. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression.
    Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Mar 15;165(6):710-8 PMID: 17182981
  20. Critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies: the CHARMS checklist.
    PLoS Med. 2014 Oct 14;11(10):e1001744 PMID: 25314315
Article Info
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
Abbr.
BMC Med Res Methodol
ISSN
1471-2288
Published
2016-00-24
Epub
2016-00-24
Pages
163
Language
English
Region
England
NLM ID
100968545
PMCID
PMC5122171
Subset
IM
Analysis Services
Analysis Services

Contact

No. 2 Wenbo Road, Zhangqiu District, Jinan, Shandong

Qilu Normal University · Genelibs Bioinformatics Lab

750 Shunhua Rd, Jinan

2F, Bldg F, University Science Park

Tel: 0531-88819269

WeChat Official Account

Follow our WeChat subscription account for real-time updates and the latest in medical and biological research.


Business Email

E-mail: [email protected]