
doi: 10.1002/sim.6122
pmid: 24599880
Writing the variance of the Mantel–Haenszel estimator under the null of homogeneity and inverting the corresponding test, we arrive at an improved confidence interval for the common risk difference in stratified 2 × 2 tables. This interval outperforms a variety of other intervals currently recommended in the literature and implemented in software. We also discuss a score‐type confidence interval that allows to incorporate strata/study weights. Both of these intervals work very well under many scenarios common in stratified trials or in a meta‐analysis, including situations with a mixture of both small and large strata sample sizes, unbalanced treatment allocation, or rare events. The new interval has the advantage that it is available in closed form with a simple formula. In addition, it applies to matched pairs data. We illustrate the methodology with various stratified clinical trials and a meta‐analysis. R code to reproduce all analysis is provided in the Appendix. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Risk, Clinical Trials as Topic, Antineoplastic Agents, Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis, meta-analysis, matched pairs, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Influenza Vaccines, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Sample Size, Influenza, Human, Confidence Intervals, score interval, Humans, stratified \(2 \times 2\) tables, difference of proportion, Multiple Myeloma
Risk, Clinical Trials as Topic, Antineoplastic Agents, Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis, meta-analysis, matched pairs, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Influenza Vaccines, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Sample Size, Influenza, Human, Confidence Intervals, score interval, Humans, stratified \(2 \times 2\) tables, difference of proportion, Multiple Myeloma
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 39 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
