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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Biometrics
Published
2025-10-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/biomtc/ujaf142
Primary Topic
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Xiaoyu Qiu, Yu Du, Yanyao Yi, Ting Ye et al.
Biometrics
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
article

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

Xiaoyu Qiu, Yu Du, Yanyao Yi, Ting Ye, Jinqiu Wang, Yi Qian, Jinling Yi
article en

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.

BiometricsVol. 81(4)
Pennsylvania State University (US), Eli Lilly (United States) (US), University of Washington (US), University of Michigan (US), Newark Academy (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.