Comment on the interpretation of odds ratios in “association of frailty with postoperative outcomes”

Dear Editor, We read with great interest the recent article by Raju et al.[1] on the association of frailty with postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing elective non-malignant abdominal surgeries under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The authors address an important topic, and we commend their contribution. However, the odds ratios (ORs) reported for general versus neuraxial anaesthesia were interpreted as indicating “74 times” and “133 times” increased odds of complications, corresponding to ORs of 1.74 and 2.33, respectively. This is a misinterpretation, as an OR of 1.74 reflects a 74% increase in odds, not a 74-fold increase. Similarly, an OR of 2.33 indicates a 133% increase in odds, not a 133-fold increase. Moreover, Figure 3 in the original article[1] does not visually depict such a significant difference, reinforcing the need to clarify the statistical interpretation to improve the accuracy of the conclusions. Understanding ORs can indeed be challenging, and ORs can often overestimate risk ratios when outcomes are common.[2] Therefore, a more precise explanation of these figures would significantly enhance the article’s value to readers. Authors contributions DRB: Concepts, Design, Definition of intellectual content, investigation and Manuscript writing. SSS: Concepts, Design, Definition of intellectual content, investigation and Manuscript writing. Disclosure of use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assistive or generative tools The AI tools or language models (LLM) have not been utilised in the manuscript, except that software has been used for grammar corrections and references. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.