Skip to main content
Log in

The failure of meta-analytic asymptotics for the seemingly efficient estimator of the common risk difference

  • Articles
  • Published:
Statistical Papers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We consider the case of a multicenter trial in which the center specific sample sizes are potentially small. Under homogeneity, the conventional procedure is to pool information using a weighted estimator where the weights used are inverse estimated center-specific variances. Whereas this procedure is efficient for conventional asymptotics (e. g. center-specific sample sizes become large, number of center fixed), it is commonly believed that the efficiency of this estimator holds true also for meta-analytic asymptotics (e.g. center-specific sample size bounded, potentially small, and number of centers large). In this contribution we demonstrate that this estimator fails to be efficient. In fact, it shows a persistent bias with increasing number of centers showing that it isnot meta-consistent. In addition, we show that the Cochran and Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimators are meta-consistent and, in more generality, provide conditions on the weights such that the associated weighted estimator is meta-consistent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cochran WG (1954) Some methods of strengthening the common ϰ2 tests. Biometrics10, 417–451

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Cooper MR, Dear KBG, McIntyre OR, Ozer H, Ellerton J, Cannellos G, Duggan B, and Schiffer C (1993) A randomized clinical trial comparing Melphalan/Prednisone with and without α-2b interferon in newlydiagnosed patients with multiple myeloma: A cancer and leukemia group B study. Journal of Clinical Oncology11, 155–160

    Google Scholar 

  3. Greenland S, Robins JM (1985) Estimation of a common effect parameter from sparse follow-up data. Biometrics41, 55–68

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Hutton JL (2000) Number needed to treat: properties and problems. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A163, 403–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, and Morgenstern H (1982) Epidemiologic Research. New York, Van Nostrant Reinhold

    Google Scholar 

  6. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, and Roberts RS (1988) An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. New England journal of medicine318, 1728–1733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lipsitz SR, Dear KBG, Laird NM, Molenberghs G (1998) Tests for homogeneity of the risk difference when data are sparse. Biometrics54, 148–160

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Mantel N and Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst22, 719–748.

    Google Scholar 

  9. O'Gorman TW, Woolson, RF, Jones MP (1994) A comparison of two methods of estimating a common risk difference in a stratified analysis of a multicenter clinical trial. Controlled Clinical Trials15, 135–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Petitti DB (1994) Meta-analysis, decision analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis: methods for quantitative synthesis in medicine. Oxford University Press

  11. Shadish WR, and Haddock CK (1994) Combining estimates of effect size. In: Cooper H, and Hedges LV (editors) The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 261–84.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kuhnert, R., Böhning, D. The failure of meta-analytic asymptotics for the seemingly efficient estimator of the common risk difference. Statistical Papers 46, 541–554 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763004

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763004

Key words

Navigation