I want to compare to incidence rate’s between two groups (one without a disease and one with).

I was planning to calculate the incidence rate ratio (IRR), i.e. incidence rate group B/ incidence rate group A, and then test if this rate equals to 1, and finally calculate 95% CI intervals for the IRR.

I found a method for calculation the 95% CI in a book (Rosner’s

Fundamentals of Biostatistics):exp[log(IRR)±1.96√(1/a1)+(1/a2)]

where a1 and a2 are the number of events.

But this approximation is only valid for large enough sample sizes and i think the numer of event I have is to small (maybe for the total comparison it’s okay.)So I think I should use another method.

Im using R and the exactci package and found that I could maybe use

`poisson.test()`

. But this function has 3 methods for defining the two sided p-values: central, minlike and blaker.So

my questionsare:

Is it correct that to compare two incidence rate ratios im using a test for comparing poisson rates?

When in use the poisson.test function in R from the exactci package what method is best?

The vignette for exactci says:

central:is 2 times the minimum of the one-sided p-values bounded above by 1. The name ‘central’ is motivated by the associated

inversion con dence intervals which are central intervals, i.e., they

guarantee that the true parameter has less than α/2 probability of

being less (more) than the lower (upper) tail of the 100(1-α)%

confidence interval. This is called the TST (twice the smaller tail

method) by Hirji (2006).

minlike:is the sum of probabilities of outcomes with likelihoods less than or equal to the observed likelihood. This is called the PB

(probability based) method by Hirji (2006).

blaker:combines the probability of the smaller observed tail with the smallest probability of the opposite tail that does not exceed

that observed tail probability. The name ‘blaker’ is motivated by

Blaker (2000) which comprehensively studies the associated method for

con dence intervals. This is called the CT (combined tail) method by

Hirji (2006).My data is:

`Group A: Age group 1: 3 cases in 10459 person yrs. Incidence rate: 0.29 Age group 2: 7 cases in 2279 person yrs. Incidence rate: 3.07 Age group 3: 4 cases in 1990 person yrs. Incidence rate: 2.01 Age group 4: 9 cases in 1618 person yrs. Incidence rate: 5.56 Age group 5: 11 cases in 1357 person yrs. Incidence rate: 8.11 Age group 6: 11 cases in 1090 person yrs. Incidence rate: 10.09 Age group 7: 9 cases in 819 person yrs. Incidence rate: 10.99 Total: 54 cases in 19612 person yrs. Incidence rate: 2.75 Group B: Age group 1: 3 cases in 3088 person yrs. Incidence rate: 0.97 Age group 2: 1 cases in 707 person yrs. Incidence rate: 1.41 Age group 3: 2 cases in 630 person yrs. Incidence rate: 3.17 Age group 4: 6 cases in 441 person yrs. Incidence rate: 13.59 Age group 5: 10 cases in 365 person yrs. Incidence rate: 27.4 Age group 6: 6 cases in 249 person yrs. Incidence rate: 24.06 Age group 7: 0 cases in 116 person yrs. Incidence rate: 0 Total: 28 cases in 5597 person yrs. Incidence rate: 5.0`

**Answer**

A couple thoughts:

First, your suggested comparison – the incident rate ratio between A and B – currently isn’t conditioned on any covariates. Which means your number of events is 54 for Group A and 28 for Group B. That’s more than enough to go with the usual large sample based Confidence Interval Methods.

Second, even if you are intending to adjust for the effect of age, rather than computing the ratio for each group, you might be better served by using a regression approach. Generally, if you’re stratifying by many levels of a variable, it becomes rather cumbersome compared to a regression equation, which would give you the ratio of the rates of A and B while controlling for Age. I believe the standard approaches will still work for your sample size, though if you’re worried about it, you could use something like glmperm.

**Attribution***Source : Link , Question Author : Edwin , Answer Author : Fomite*