Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41171215›Full record

ArticleBiometrics2025

Clarifying the role of the Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimator in randomized clinical trials.

Xiaoyu Qiu, Yuhan Qian, Jaehwan Yi, Jinqiu Wang, Yu Du, Yanyao Yi, Ting Ye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biometrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Xiaoyu QiuDepartment of Statistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, United States.
Yuhan QianDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, United States.
Jaehwan YiDepartment of Statistics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United States.
Jinqiu WangNewark Academy, Livingston, NJ 07039, United States.
Yu DuGlobal Statistical Sciences, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN 46285, United States.
Yanyao YiGlobal Statistical Sciences, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN 46285, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1540-1862
Ting YeDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6009-641X

Funding

SDMC: HPTN 084 Pregnancy SupplementUM1AI068617 · NIAID · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Elizabeth Renata Brown, Deborah J Donnell · 2011 to 2026
$204.9M
NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI068617NIH HHS 5 UM1 AI068617
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Mantel-Haenszel (MH) risk difference estimator, commonly used in randomized clinical trials for binary outcomes, calculates a weighted average of stratum-specific risk difference estimators. Traditionally, this method requires the stringent assumption that risk differences are homogeneous across strata, also known as the common (constant) risk difference assumption. In our paper, we relax this assumption and adopt a modern perspective, viewing the MH risk difference estimator as an approach for covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials, distinguishing its use from that in meta-analysis and observational studies. We demonstrate that, under reasonable restrictions on risk difference variability, the MH risk difference estimator consistently estimates the average treatment effect within a standard super-population framework, which is often the primary interest in randomized clinical trials, in addition to estimating a weighted average of stratum-specific risk differences. We rigorously study its properties under the large-stratum and sparse-stratum asymptotic regimes, as well as under mixed-regime settings. Furthermore, for either estimand, we propose a unified robust variance estimator that improves over the popular variance estimators by Greenland and Robins and Sato et al. and has provable consistency across these asymptotic regimes, regardless of assuming common risk differences. Extensions of our theoretical results also provide new insights into the MH test, the post-stratification estimator, and settings with multiple treatments. Our findings are thoroughly validated through simulations and a clinical trial example.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBiometryComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansRiskRisk Assessmentaverage treatment effectcovariate adjustmentdifference of proportionrobust variance estimationstratified 2 × 2 table

Identifiers

PMID41171215
PMCPMC12576803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.