CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9,062Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyProbability and Statistical Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample

Open access
Hozo, Stela Pudar, Djulbegovic, Benjamin, Hozo, Iztok·2005·BMC Medical Research Methodology
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-5-13PMC PMC1097734
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Usually the researchers performing meta-analysis of continuous outcomes from clinical trials need their mean value and the variance (or standard deviation) in order to pool data. However, sometimes the published reports of clinical trials only report the median, range and the size of the trial. METHODS: In this article we use simple and elementary inequalities and approximations in order to estimate the mean and the variance for such trials. Our estimation is distribution-free, i.e., it makes no assumption on the distribution of the underlying data. RESULTS: We found two simple formulas that estimate the mean using the values of the median (m), low and high end of the range (a and b, respectively), and n (the sample size). Using simulations, we show that median can be used to estimate mean when the sample size is larger than 25. For smaller samples our new formula, devised in this paper, should be used. We also estimated the variance of an unknown sample using the median, low and high end of the range, and the sample size. Our estimate is performing as the best estimate in our simulations for very small samples (n < or = 15). For moderately sized samples (15 < n < or = 70), our simulations show that the formula range/4 is the best estimator for the standard deviation (variance). For large samples (n > 70), the formula range/6 gives the best estimator for the standard deviation (variance). We also include an illustrative example of the potential value of our method using reports from the Cochrane review on the role of erythropoietin in anemia due to malignancy. CONCLUSION: Using these formulas, we hope to help meta-analysts use clinical trials in their analysis even when not all of the information is available and/or reported.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2288-5-13

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Meta-Analysis of random data. After drawing fifteen samples of random sizes (between 8 and 100) from the Log-Normal [4, 0.3] distribution, we used our estimation formulas to estimate the mean and the variance from the median and the range. Then we performed meta-analysis using STATA, treating the real samples as one subgroup and their estimates as another subgroup to determine the results and heterogeneity.
Figure 1 Meta-Analysis of random data. After drawing fifteen samples of random sizes (between 8 and 100) from the Log-Normal [4, 0.3] distribution, we used our estimation formulas to estimate the mean and the variance from the median and the range. Then we performed meta-analysis using STATA, treating the real samples as one subgroup and their estimates as another subgroup to determine the results and heterogeneity.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Actual pooled mean difference and estimated pooled mean difference. The black diamonds represent the actual pooled mean difference using sample means. The red circles represent the pooled mean differences for the same samples using our estimation formulas (we connected the corresponding symbols for clarity). The horizontal axis represents the number of trials in the meta-analysis (from 8 to 100).
Figure 2 Actual pooled mean difference and estimated pooled mean difference. The black diamonds represent the actual pooled mean difference using sample means. The red circles represent the pooled mean differences for the same samples using our estimation formulas (we connected the corresponding symbols for clarity). The horizontal axis represents the number of trials in the meta-analysis (from 8 to 100).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 An example: Meta Analysis with all eligible trials included. Cochrane investigators [5] were only able to pool two studies to evaluate the effect of Epo on change in hemoglobin in the patients with the baseline level of hemoglobin >12 g/dl who underwent chemotherapy. Their results show that on average Epo increases hemoglobin by 2.05 g/dl. Using our estimation formulas, we were able to include two other studies eligible for this meta-analysis ([9, 10]). The pooled estimate decreased to 1.22 g/dl, i.e., a decrease of approximately 40%.
Figure 3 An example: Meta Analysis with all eligible trials included. Cochrane investigators [5] were only able to pool two studies to evaluate the effect of Epo on change in hemoglobin in the patients with the baseline level of hemoglobin >12 g/dl who underwent chemotherapy. Their results show that on average Epo increases hemoglobin by 2.05 g/dl. Using our estimation formulas, we were able to include two other studies eligible for this meta-analysis ([9, 10]). The pooled estimate decreased to 1.22 g/dl, i.e., a decrease of approximately 40%.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–173 of 173

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hozo, S. P., Djulbegovic, B., & Hozo, I.
Affiliations
Indiana University Northwest (US)
Corresponding author
Hozo, Iztok
ORCID
Hozo, Iztok
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2005-04-20
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
13-13
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2288-5-13
PMC
PMC1097734
OpenAlex
W1537972189
Cited by
9,062
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 531 · 2025: 725 · 2024: 832 · 2023: 866 · 2022: 864 · 2021: 1046 · 2020: 940 · 2019: 638 · 2018: 559 · 2017: 478 · 2016: 405 · 2015: 398 · 2014: 276 · 2013: 181 · 2012: 127
FWCI
13.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 › Probability and Statistical Research
Keywords
mean estimation, variance estimation, median, range, sample size, distribution-free estimation, standard deviation estimation, small sample size, erythropoietin
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Clinical Trials as Topic, Computer Simulation, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Models, Statistical, Sample Size

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