Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36035608›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied statistics2022

How reliable are the multiple comparison methods for odds ratio?

Ayfer Ezgi Yilmaz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied statistics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ayfer Ezgi YilmazDepartment of Statistics, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The homogeneity tests of odds ratios are used in clinical trials and epidemiological investigations as a preliminary step of meta-analysis. In recent studies, the severity or mortality of COVID-19 in relation to demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and other conditions has been popularly discussed by interpreting odds ratios and using meta-analysis. According to the homogeneity test results, a common odds ratio summarizes all of the odds ratios in a series of studies. If the aim is not to find a common odds ratio, but to find which of the sub-characteristics/groups is different from the others or is under risk, then the implementation of a multiple comparison procedure is required. In this article, the focus is placed on the accuracy and reliability of the homogeneity of odds ratio tests for multiple comparisons when the odds ratios are heterogeneous at the omnibus level. Three recently proposed multiple comparison tests and four homogeneity of odds ratios tests with six adjustment methods to control the type-I error rate are considered. The reliability and accuracy of the methods are discussed in relation to COVID-19 severity data associated with diabetes on a country-by-country basis, and a simulation study to assess the powers and type-I error rates of the tests is conducted.

Indexed as

COVID-19Homogeneity of odds ratiosmeta-analysismultiple comparisonsstatistical powertype-I error

Identifiers

PMID36035608
PMCPMC9415621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.