Letter to the editor: Odds ratio versus risk ratios: Rejuvenating an important debate and an opportunity to learn

In brief

This letter addresses methodological considerations in comparing odds ratios versus risk ratios in systematic reviews, specifically responding to commentary on a meta-analysis of bedside versus operating room surgery in critically ill neonates. The authors clarify statistical interpretation issues and defend their analytical approach to surgical outcomes research.

• Odds ratios and risk ratios are distinct effect measures; choosing the appropriate metric depends on study design and outcome prevalence.
• In neonatal critical care research, effect measure selection impacts clinical interpretation and generalizability of surgical intervention studies.
• Methodological transparency in systematic reviews requires explicit justification of statistical approaches, especially in meta-analyses.
• Letters to the editor serve as valuable peer discourse for refining research methodology and advancing evidence-based practice standards.
• Understanding effect measure properties prevents misinterpretation of treatment effects in high-risk populations like critically ill neonates.

Written by the GCMD Library team from the article.