The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
When continuous outcomes are measured using different scales: guide for meta-analysis and interpretation
Open accessAbstract
It is common to measure continuous outcomes using different scales (eg, quality of life, severity of anxiety or depression), therefore these outcomes need to be standardized before pooling in a meta-analysis. Common methods of standardization include using the standardized mean difference, the odds ratio derived from continuous data, the minimally important difference, and the ratio of means. Other ways of making data more meaningful to end users include transforming standardized effects back to original scales and transforming odds ratios to absolute effects using an assumed baseline risk. For these methods to be valid, the scales or instruments being combined across studies need to have assessed the same or a similar construct
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Wasserman, S. S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,377
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
(1985) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-03396-0 · Cited by 2,570
Methods to Explain the Clinical Significance of Health Status Measures
Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., & Norman, G. R. (2002) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.4065/77.4.371 · Cited by 1,525
Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests.
Hasselblad, V., & Hedges, L. V. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.167 · Cited by 579
Murad, M. H., Montori, V. M., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Jaeschke, R., Devereaux, P. J., Prasad, K., Neumann, I., Carrasco-Labra, A., Agoritsas, T., Hatala, R., et al. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.5559 · Cited by 454
Self-citationFriedrich, J. O., Adhikari, N. K. J., & Beyene, J. (2008) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-32 · Cited by 333
Thorlund, K., Walter, S. D., Johnston, B. C., Furukawa, T. A., & Guyatt, G. H. (2011) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.46 · Cited by 295
Measurement Properties and Interpretability of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ)
Schünemann, H. J., Puhan, M. A., Goldstein, R. S., Jaeschke, R., & Guyatt, G. H. (2005) · COPD Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease · doi:10.1081/copd-200050651 · Cited by 285
Friedrich, J. O., Adhikari, N. K. J., & Beyene, J. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.016 · Cited by 235
Wang, Z., Whiteside, S. P. H., Sim, L., Farah, W., Morrow, A. S., Alsawas, M., Barrionuevo, P., Tello, M., Asi, N., Beuschel, B., et al. (2017) · JAMA Pediatrics · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.3036 · Cited by 234
Self-citationApproach to Outcome Measurement in the Prevention of Thrombosis in Surgical and Medical Patients
Guyatt, G. H., Eikelboom, J. W., Gould, M. K., Garcia, D. A., Crowther, M. A., Murad, M. H., Kahn, S. R., Falck-Ytter, Y. T., Francis, C. W., Lansberg, M. G., et al. (2012) · CHEST Journal · doi:10.1378/chest.11-2289 · Cited by 192
Self-citationJohnston, B. C., Thorlund, K., Schünemann, H. J., Xie, F., Murad, M. H., Montori, V. M., & Guyatt, G. H. (2010) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-116 · Cited by 165
Self-citationda Costa, B. R., Rutjes, A. W., Johnston, B. C., Reichenbach, S., Nüesch, E., Tonia, T., Gemperli, A., Guyatt, G. H., & Jüni, P. (2012) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dys124 · Cited by 145
Miller, S. A., Wu, R., & Oremus, M. (2018) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.12717 · Cited by 101
Uncertainties in baseline risk estimates and confidence in treatment effects
Spencer, F. A., Iorio, A., You, J. J., Murad, M. H., Schünemann, H. J., Vandvik, P. O., Crowther, M. A., Pottie, K. C., Lang, E., Meerpohl, J. J., et al. (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e7401 · Cited by 56
Self-citationNoortgate, W. V. D., & Onghena, P. (2003) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03195529 · Cited by 43
Murad, M. H., Montori, V. M., Walter, S. D., & Guyatt, G. H. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.11.005 · Cited by 30
Self-citationShrier, I., Christensen, R., Juhl, C. B., & Beyene, J. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.012 · Cited by 10
A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis
Chinn, S. (2000) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/1097-0258(20001130)19:22
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Wang Z, Whiteside SPH, Sim L, et al. Anxiety in Children. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2017 Aug. Report No.: 17-EHC023-EF. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK476277/
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Obesity in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Huang, Y., Lu, Y., Huang, Y.-M., Wang, M., Ling, W., Sui, Y., & Zhao, H.-L. (2020) · Metabolism · doi:10.1016/j.metabol.2020.154378 · Cited by 454
“For continuous outcome variables, SMD is ameasure of distance between two groupmeans in terms of one ormore variables and used as a summary statistic when outcome from each study is measured using several different scales [16].”
Health Outcomes of Parents of Children with Chronic Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Cohn, L. N., Pechlivanoglou, P., Lee, Y., Mahant, S., Orkin, J., Marson, A., & Cohen, E. (2020) · The Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.10.068 · Cited by 349
“Given the potential challenges in interpreting mean differences on varied scales clinically, 32 a supplementary analysis was conducted comparing the percentages of parents scoring above or below clinical cutoff scores established by scales for depression and anxiety.”
MethodEvaluation of various estimators for standardized mean difference in meta‐analysis
Lin, L., & Aloe, A. M. (2021) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.8781 · Cited by 297
“F I G U R E 1 The exact form of the correction coefficient J(mi) and its approximate form J̃(mi) in (A); and the coefficients of g2 i in the variance estimators of Hedges’ g in Equations (10) and (14) in (B) for mi = 3, 4, .”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationCost and effects of integrated care: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Rocks, S., Berntson, D., Gil-Salmerón, A., Kadu, M., Ehrenberg, N., Stein, V. K., & Tsiachristas, A. (2020) · The European Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1007/s10198-020-01217-5 · Cited by 247
Ho, E. K.-Y., Chen, L., Simic, M., Ashton-James, C. E., Comachio, J., Wang, D. X. M., Hayden, J. A., Ferreira, M. L., & Ferreira, P. H. (2022) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-067718 · Cited by 220
“…equivalent to a mean difference of the following values between groups: To transform SMD to mean difference values, based on a methodological paper, 45 we multiplied the SMD by the pooled standard deviation obtained from the largest trial assessing each outcome: physical function, 46 pain…”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Murad, M. H., Wang, Z., Chu, H., & Lin, L.
- Affiliations
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Florida State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Murad, Mohammad Hassan
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2019-01-22
- Volume
- 364
- Pages
- k4817
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- PMC
- PMC6890471
- OpenAlex
- W2912626077
- Cited by
- 329
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 65 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 15.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U01DK106786)
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (R21LM012744, R21LM012197)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Keywords
- scale standardization, continuous outcomes, meta-analysis, standardized mean difference, odds ratio, minimally important difference, ratio of means, baseline risk, quality of life, anxiety, depression
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Anxiety, Child, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Decision Making, Depression, Female, Humans, Parents, Quality of Life, Reference Standards, Severity of Illness Index, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care
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
