Edgington's Combination Method for Two-Study Meta-Analysis: An Empirical Evaluation in 1226 Meta-Analyses
Two-study meta-analyses are common in evidence synthesis but pose major statistical challenges. With only two studies, the between-study variance cannot be reliably estimated, rendering standard random-effects methods unstable. Here, we investigate meta-analyses based on Edgington's p-value combination method as an alternative approach, applying it to 1226 two-study meta-analyses from the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Like fixed-effect meta-analysis, Edgington's method is calibrated under homogeneity. However, it adapts confidence interval width to observed between-study discrepancy without requiring explicit heterogeneity estimation. In all of the examined meta-analyses, this leads to confidence intervals that contain both study-specific estimates but remain informative. Edgington's method agrees with fixed-effect meta-analysis on statistical significance (at two-sided $\alpha$ = 0.05) in 91% of all meta-analyses, but can give wider intervals when study results are discrepant and narrower intervals when results are highly consistent. Weighted extensions of Edgington's method shift point estimates toward the more precise study while preserving much of this adaptive behavior. We conclude that Edgington's method offers a principled and practically useful complement to existing approaches for two-study meta-analysis, occupying a middle ground between standard fixed-effect and random-effects approaches.