IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/japsta/v49y2022i12p3141-3163.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How reliable are the multiple comparison methods for odds ratio?

Author

Listed:
  • Ayfer Ezgi Yilmaz

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Ayfer Ezgi Yilmaz, 2022. "How reliable are the multiple comparison methods for odds ratio?," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(12), pages 3141-3163, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:japsta:v:49:y:2022:i:12:p:3141-3163
    DOI: 10.1080/02664763.2022.2104229
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02664763.2022.2104229
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02664763.2022.2104229?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:japsta:v:49:y:2022:i:12:p:3141-3163. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJAS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.