Cited by 4,066Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range

Open access
Luo, Dehui, Wan, Xiang, Liu, Jiming, Tong, Tiejun·2018·Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Abstract

The era of big data is coming, and evidence-based medicine is attracting increasing attention to improve decision making in medical practice via integrating evidence from well designed and conducted clinical research. Meta-analysis is a statistical technique widely used in evidence-based medicine for analytically combining the findings from independent clinical trials to provide an overall estimation of a treatment effectiveness. The sample mean and standard deviation are two commonly used statistics in meta-analysis but some trials use the median, the minimum and maximum values, or sometimes the first and third quartiles to report the results. Thus, to pool results in a consistent format, researchers need to transform those information back to the sample mean and standard deviation. In this article, we investigate the optimal estimation of the sample mean for meta-analysis from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. A major drawback in the literature is that the sample size, needless to say its importance, is either ignored or used in a stepwise but somewhat arbitrary manner, e.g. the famous method proposed by Hozo et al. We solve this issue by incorporating the sample size in a smoothly changing weight in the estimators to reach the optimal estimation. Our proposed estimators not only improve the existing ones significantly but also share the same virtue of the simplicity. The real data application indicates that our proposed estimators are capable to serve as "rules of thumb" and will be widely applied in evidence-based medicine.

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 · 10.1177/0962280216669183

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • Missing data were handled by estimating mean and standard deviation from median and interquartile range using conventional formulae, and by prognostic imputation when both were absent.

    “When studies reported a median and interquartile range, we estimated the mean and standard deviation (SD) using conventional formulae (Luo et al., 2018;Wan et al., 2014).When both of these were absent, we estimated the standard deviation using prognostic imputation (Ma et al., 2008).”

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: 1

  1. Davies P, Church H, Charumilind A, et al. Altered vitamin D homeostasis in tuberculosis. Int Med J Thailand 1988; 4: 45-47.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Luo, D., Wan, X., Liu, J., & Tong, T.
Affiliations
Hong Kong Baptist University (HK)
Corresponding author
Wan, Xiang
Venue
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Published
2016-09-27
Volume
27
Issue
6
Pages
1785-1805
ISSN
  • 0962-2802 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0334
OpenAlex
W1534181333
Cited by
4,066
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 789 · 2025: 833 · 2024: 700 · 2023: 601 · 2022: 462 · 2021: 379 · 2020: 188 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 1
FWCI
34.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistical Methods in Medical Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Hong Kong Baptist University (FRG2/14-15/077, FRG1/14-15/084, FRG2/15-16/019)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
sample mean estimation, meta-analysis, median, sample size, standard deviation estimation, optimal estimators, evidence-based medicine
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Sampling Studies, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Sample Size, Evidence-Based Medicine

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