Cited by 432Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Pre-post effect sizes should be avoided in meta-analyses

Open access
Cuijpers, P., Weitz, E., Cristea, I. A., Twisk, J.·2017·Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences

Abstract

Aims: The standardised mean difference (SMD) is one of the most used effect sizes to indicate the effects of treatments. It indicates the difference between a treatment and comparison group after treatment has ended, in terms of standard deviations. Some meta-analyses, including several highly cited and influential ones, use the pre-post SMD, indicating the difference between baseline and post-test within one (treatment group). Methods: In this paper, we argue that these pre-post SMDs should be avoided in meta-analyses and we describe the arguments why pre-post SMDs can result in biased outcomes. Results: One important reason why pre-post SMDs should be avoided is that the scores on baseline and post-test are not independent of each other. The value for the correlation should be used in the calculation of the SMD, while this value is typically not known. We used data from an ‘individual patient data’ meta-analysis of trials comparing cognitive behaviour therapy and anti-depressive medication, to show that this problem can lead to considerable errors in the estimation of the SMDs. Another even more important reason why pre-post SMDs should be avoided in meta-analyses is that they are influenced by natural processes and characteristics of the patients and settings, and these cannot be discerned from the effects of the intervention. Between-group SMDs are much better because they control for such variables and these variables only affect the between group SMD when they are related to the effects of the intervention. Conclusions: We conclude that pre-post SMDs should be avoided in meta-analyses as using them probably results in biased outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s2045796016000809

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Beck, 1996, BDI-II. Beck Depression Inventory
  2. Higgins, 2011, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cuijpers, P., Weitz, E., Cristea, I. A., & Twisk, J.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Babeș-Bolyai University (RO)
Corresponding author
Cuijpers, P.
Venue
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
Published
2016-10-28
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
364-368
ISSN
  • 2045-7960 (ISSN-L)
  • 2045-7979
OpenAlex
W2539720341
Cited by
432
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1
FWCI
14.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation
  • Autoritatea Natională pentru Cercetare Stiintifică
  • Unitatea Executiva pentru Finantarea Invatamantului Superior, a Cercetarii, Dezvoltarii si Inovarii
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
standardized mean difference, effect size bias, individual patient data meta-analysis, cognitive behavioral therapy, antidepressants, depression treatment
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Depression, Humans, Reference Standards, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review