Mean Difference, Standardized Mean Difference (SMD), and Their Use in Meta-Analysis: As Simple as It Gets

被引:420
|
作者
Andrade, Chittaranjan [1 ]
机构
[1] Natl Inst Mental Hlth & Neurosci, Dept Clin Psychopharmacol & Neurotoxicol, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
关键词
D O I
10.4088/JCP.20f13681
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), endpoint scores, or change scores representing the difference between endpoint and baseline, are values of interest. These values are compared between experimental and control groups, yielding a mean difference between the experimental and control groups for each outcome that is compared. When the mean difference values for a specified outcome, obtained from different RCTs, are all in the same unit (such as when they were all obtained using the same rating instrument), they can be pooled in meta-analysis to yield a summary estimate that is also known as a mean difference (MD). Because pooling of the mean difference from individual RCTs is done after weighting the values for precision, this pooled MD is also known as the weighted mean difference (WMD). Sometimes, different studies use different rating instruments to measure the same outcome; that is, the units of measurement for the outcome of interest are different across studies. In such cases, the mean differences from the different RCTs cannot be pooled. However, these mean differences can be divided by their respective standard deviations (SDs) to yield a statistic known as the standardized mean difference (SMD). The SD that is used as the divisor is usually either the pooled SD or the SD of the control group; in the former instance, the SMD is known as Cohen's d, and in the latter instance, as Glass' delta. SMDs of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 are considered small, medium, and large, respectively. SMDs can be pooled in meta-analysis because the unit is uniform across studies. This article presents and explains the different terms and concepts with the help of simple examples.
引用
收藏
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] PREFERENCE OF EQUIVALENCE TESTS WITH STANDARDIZED MEAN DIFFERENCE DEMONSTRATED BY AN APPLICATION
    SCHUSTER, E
    COMPUTATIONAL STATISTICS & DATA ANALYSIS, 1995, 19 (03) : 353 - 356
  • [32] Reformulating the meta-analytical random effects model of the standardized mean difference as a mixture model
    Suero, Manuel
    Botella, Juan
    Duran, Juan I.
    Blazquez-Rincon, Desiree
    BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2025, 57 (02)
  • [33] Ratio of means for analyzing continuous outcomes in meta-analysis performed as well as mean difference methods
    Friedrich, Jan O.
    Adhikari, Neill K. J.
    Beyene, Joseph
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 64 (05) : 556 - 564
  • [34] Log mean difference
    Dalton, TN
    INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY, 1938, 30 : 1081 - 1081
  • [35] Psychological Treatment for Anorexia Nervosa: A Meta-Analysis of Standardized Mean Change
    Hartmann, Armin
    Weber, Stefanie
    Herpertz, Stephan
    Zeeck, Almut
    PSYCHOTHERAPY AND PSYCHOSOMATICS, 2011, 80 (04) : 216 - 226
  • [36] ESTIMATIONS OF POWER DIFFERENCE MEAN BY HERON MEAN
    Ito, Masatoshi
    JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL INEQUALITIES, 2017, 11 (03): : 831 - 843
  • [37] Mean Values after Treatment or Mean Difference?
    Amani, Behnam
    Akbarzadeh, Arash
    Amani, Bahman
    UROLOGY JOURNAL, 2020, 17 (03) : 324 - 324
  • [38] Statistical methodology for estimating the mean difference in a meta-analysis without study-specific variance information
    Sangnawakij, Patarawan
    Bohning, Dankmar
    Adams, Stephen
    Stanton, Michael
    Holling, Heinz
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2017, 36 (09) : 1395 - 1413
  • [39] AN EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR COMPUTING STANDARDIZED MEAN DIFFERENCE EFFECT SIZE
    TAYLOR, MJ
    WHITE, KR
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL EDUCATION, 1992, 61 (01): : 63 - 72
  • [40] A procedure for combining sample standardized mean differences and vote counts to estimate the population standardized mean difference in fixed effects models
    Bushman, BJ
    Wang, MC
    PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 1996, 1 (01) : 66 - 80