Analysis by Categorizing or Dichotomizing Continuous Variables Is Inadvisable: An Example from the Natural History of Unruptured Aneurysms

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Rinkel GJ,
   2. Djibuti M,
   3. Algra A,
   4. et al

   . Prevalence and risk of rupture of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review. Stroke 1998;29:251–56

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Cowan JA Jr.,
   2. Ziewacz J,
   3. Dimick JB,
   4. et al

   . Use of endovascular coil embolization and surgical clip occlusion for cerebral artery aneurysms. J Neurosurg 2007;107:530–35

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Juvela S,
   2. Porras M,
   3. Poussa K

   . Natural history of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: probability of and risk factors for aneurysm rupture. J Neurosurg 2008;108:1052–60

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   1. Ishibashi T,
   2. Murayama Y,
   3. Ikeuchi S,
   4. et al

   . Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: natural history, risk of rupture, and clinical outcome of endovascular treatment as a first line of therapy—International Stroke Conference. Stroke 2007;38:595
5. 5.↵
   Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: risk of rupture and risks of surgical intervention—International Study of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms Investigators. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1725–33

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Bederson JB,
   2. Awad IA,
   3. Wiebers DO,
   4. et al

   . Recommendations for the management of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Stroke Council of the American Heart Association. Circulation 2000;102:2300–08

   FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. Wiebers DO,
   2. Whisnant JP,
   3. Huston J 3rd.,
   4. et al

   . Unruptured intracranial aneurysms: natural history, clinical outcome, and risks of surgical and endovascular treatment. Lancet 2003;362:103–10

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   1. Yoshimoto Y

   . A mathematical model of the natural history of intracranial aneurysms: quantification of the benefit of prophylactic treatment. J Neurosurg 2006;104:195–200

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Greving JP,
   2. Rinkel GJ,
   3. Buskens E,
   4. et al

   . Cost-effectiveness of preventive treatment of intracranial aneurysms: new data and uncertainties. Neurology. 2009;73:258–65

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    1. Royston P,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Sauerbrei W

    . Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea. Stat Med 2006;25:127–41

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Chen H,
    2. Cohen P,
    3. Chen S

    . Biased odds ratios from dichotomization of age. Stat Med 2007;26:3487–97

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Streiner DL

    . Breaking up is hard to do: the heartbreak of dichotomizing continuous data. Can J Psychiatry 2002;47:262–66

    PubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. van Walraven C,
    2. Hart RG

    . Leave 'em alone: why continuous variables should be analyzed as such. Neuroepidemiology 2008;30:138–39. Epub 2008 Apr 17

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Vickers AJ,
    2. Lilja H

    . Cutpoints in clinical chemistry: time for fundamental reassessment. Clin Chem 2009;55:15–17

    FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Heavner KK,
    2. Phillips CV,
    3. Burstyn I,
    4. et al

    . Dichotomization: 2 x 2 (x2 x 2 x 2…) categories: infinite possibilities. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010;10:59

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Fedorov V,
    2. Mannino F,
    3. Zhang R

    . Consequences of dichotomization. Pharm Stat 2009;8:50–61

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Zhao LP,
    2. Kolonel LN

    . Efficiency loss from categorizing quantitative exposures into qualitative exposures in case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol 1992;136:464–74

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    1. Selvin S

    . Statistical Power and Sample Size Calculations: Statistical Analysis of Epidemiological Data. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004:75–92
19. 19.↵
    1. Becher H,
    2. Grau A,
    3. Steindorf K,
    4. et al

    . Previous infection and other risk factors for acute cerebrovascular ischaemia: attributable risks and the characterisation of high risk groups. J Epidemiol Biostat 2000;5:277–83

    PubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Ewald B

    . Post hoc choice of cut points introduced bias to diagnostic research. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:798–801

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    1. Vargha A,
    2. Rudas T,
    3. Delaney H,
    4. et al

    . Dichotomization, partial correlation, and conditional independence. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 1996;21:264–82

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    1. Maxwell SE,
    2. Delaney HD

    . Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical significance. Psychological Bulletin 1993;113:181–90

    CrossRefWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    1. Taylor J,
    2. Yu M

    . Bias and efficiency loss due to categorizing an explanatory variable. Journal of Multivariate Analysis 2002;83:248–63

    CrossRef
24. 24.↵
    1. Ragland DR

    . Dichotomizing continuous outcome variables: dependence of the magnitude of association and statistical power on the cutpoint. Epidemiology 1992;3:434–40

    PubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Perel P,
    2. Edwards P,
    3. Wentz R,
    4. et al

    . Systematic review of prognostic models in traumatic brain injury. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2006;6:38

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Mushkudiani NA,
    2. Hukkelhoven CW,
    3. Hernandez AV,
    4. et al

    . A systematic review finds methodological improvements necessary for prognostic models in determining traumatic brain injury outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:331–43

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    1. Leushuis E,
    2. van der Steeg JW,
    3. Steures P,
    4. et al

    . Prediction models in reproductive medicine: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update 2009;15:537–52

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    1. Mallett S,
    2. Royston P,
    3. Dutton S,
    4. et al

    . Reporting methods in studies developing prognostic models in cancer: a review. BMC Med 2010;8:20

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Royston P,
    2. Sauerbrei W

    . Building multivariable regression models with continuous covariates in clinical epidemiology: with an emphasis on fractional polynomials. Methods Inf Med 2005;44:561–71

    PubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    1. Royston P,
    2. Sauerbrei W

    . A new approach to modelling interactions between treatment and continuous covariates in clinical trials by using fractional polynomials. Stat Med 2004;23:2509–25

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science