The Risk Difference (RD), an absolute measure of effect, is widely used and well-studied in both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Complementary to the RD, the Risk Ratio (RR), as a relative measure, is critical for a comprehensive understanding of intervention effects: RD can downplay small absolute changes, while RR can highlight them. Despite its significance, the theoretical study of RR has received less attention, particularly in observational settings. This paper addresses this gap by tackling the estimation of RR in observational data. We propose several RR estimators and establish their theoretical properties, including asymptotic normality and confidence intervals. Through analyses on simulated and real-world datasets, we evaluate the performance of these estimators in terms of bias, efficiency, and robustness to generative data models. We also examine the coverage and length of the associated confidence intervals. Due to the non-linear nature of RR, influence function theory yields two distinct efficient estimators with different convergence assumptions. Based on theoretical and empirical insights, we recommend, among all estimators, one of the two doubly-robust estimators, which, intriguingly, challenges conventional expectations.

Generalization methods offer a powerful solution to one of the key drawbacks of randomized controlled trials (RCTs): their limited representativeness. By enabling the transport of treatment effect estimates to target populations subject to distributional shifts, these methods are increasingly recognized as the future of meta-analysis, the current gold standard in evidence-based medicine. Yet most existing approaches focus on the risk difference, overlooking the diverse range of causal measures routinely reported in clinical research. Reporting multiple effect measures—both absolute (e.g., risk difference, number needed to treat) and relative (e.g., risk ratio, odds ratio)—is essential to ensure clinical relevance, policy utility, and interpretability across contexts. To address this gap, we propose a unified framework for transporting a broad class of first-moment population causal effect measures under covariate shift. We provide identification results under two conditional exchangeability assumptions, derive both classical and semiparametric estimators, and evaluate their performance through theoretical analysis, simulations, and real-world applications. Our analysis shows the specificity of different causal measures and thus the interest of studying them all: for instance, two common approaches (one-step, estimating equation) lead to similar estimators for the risk difference but to two distinct estimators for the odds ratio.