The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mean Difference, Standardized Mean Difference (SMD), and Their Use in Meta-Analysis: As Simple as It Gets
Open accessAbstract
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.
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
Lakens, D. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 · Cited by 10,303
Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses
Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P., Altman, D. G., & on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group (2019) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch10 · Cited by 2,672
Andrade, C. (2020) · Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1177/0253717620933419 · Cited by 89
Self-citationA Primer on Confidence Intervals in Psychopharmacology
Andrade, C. (2015) · The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.4088/jcp.14f09751 · Cited by 35
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 842
NF-κB c-Rel is a critical regulator of TLR7-induced inflammation in psoriasis
Liu, A. R., Sarkar, N., Cress, J. D., de Jesus, T. J., Vadlakonda, A., Centore, J. T., Griffith, A. D., Rohr, B. R., McCormick, T. S., Cooper, K. D., et al. (2024) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105452 · Cited by 25
Wan, K., Dai, Z.-H., Wong, P.-S., Ho, R. S. T., & Tam, B. T. (2025) · Sports Medicine - Open · doi:10.1186/s40798-025-00811-2 · Cited by 25
“Dynamic balance and flexibility, on the other hand, were analyzed using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% CIs [28].”
Li, X., Yu, R., Wang, P., Wang, A., & Huang, H. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18147643 · Cited by 25
“The effect size was calculated according to Cohen’s d [48].”
MethodSobeeh, M. G., Hassan, K. A., Silva, A. G., Youssef, E. F., Fayaz, N. A., & Mohammed, M. M. (2023) · Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research · doi:10.1186/s13018-022-03461-2 · Cited by 30
Adjusted win ratio using the inverse probability of treatment weighting
Wang, D., Zheng, S., Cui, Y., He, N., Chen, T., & Huang, B. (2023) · Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics · doi:10.1080/10543406.2023.2275759 · Cited by 24
“It is a unit-free measurement and can therefore be compared across different groups or covariates (Andrade 2020).”
Li, L., Liu, T., Li, J., Yang, Y., Liu, H., & Zhang, P. (2024) · Aquaculture Reports · doi:10.1016/j.aqrep.2024.102121 · Cited by 26
Relaxation Therapy and Human Milk Feeding Outcomes
Levene, I., Shukri, N. H. M., O'Brien, F. E., QUIGLEY, M. A., & Fewtrell, M. S. (2024) · Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.0814 · Cited by 24
A Practical Guide to Perform a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis
Ortíz, A. F. H., Camacho, E. C., Rojas, J. D. C., Cadavid, T., Guevara, S. Z., Cuenca, N. T. R., Perdomo, A. F. V., Herazo, V. D. C., & Malo, R. G. (2021) · Principles and Practice of Clinical Research Journal · doi:10.21801/ppcrj.2021.74.6 · Cited by 27
Yu, Y. H., Wang, X., Wu, Y., Weng, W., Zhang, M., Li, J., Huang, X., & Gao, Y. (2022) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-022-04072-1 · Cited by 24
“When the included studies evaluate the same outcome, but with different measurement methods or different scales, standardized mean difference (SMD) was considered suitable for selection as the pooled statistic to report continuous outcomes [18].”
Prenatal and perinatal risk factors for bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Shintani, A. O., Rabelo‐da‐Ponte, F. D., Marchionatti, L. E., Watts, D., de Souza, F. F., Machado, C. D. S., Pulice, R. F., Signori, G. M., Luzini, R. R., Kauer‐Sant’Anna, M., et al. (2022) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104960 · Cited by 24
Bahreiny, S. S., Aghaei, M., Dabbagh, M. R., Ghorbani, H., Javidan, M., & Fard, R. M. (2024) · Asian Pacific Journal of Reproduction · doi:10.4103/apjr.apjr_95_23 · Cited by 26
Mo, X., Lu, P., & Yang, X. (2023) · Clinical Cardiology · doi:10.1002/clc.24085 · Cited by 20
Andrade, C. (2023) · The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.4088/jcp.23f15028 · Cited by 23
Self-citationElmakaty, I. (2024) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.14138 · Cited by 23
“22 The distinction lies in the data given by the studies included.”
Systematic review with meta‐analysis: outcomes of pregnancy in patients with autoimmune hepatitis
Si, T., Huang, Z., Hegarty, R., Ma, Y., & Heneghan, M. A. (2022) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/apt.16924 · Cited by 22
Potdukhe, S., Iyer, J., & Nadgere, J. B. (2023) · Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry · doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.04.021 · Cited by 25
Aini, N., Chen, R., Chu, H., Chang, C., Lin, H., Jen, H., Liu, D., Lee, T., & Chou, K. (2023) · American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2023.12.010 · Cited by 23
Levis, M., Levy, J., Dent, K. R., Dufort, V., Gobbel, G. T., Watts, B. V., & Shiner, B. R. (2023) · The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.4088/jcp.22m14568 · Cited by 24
Junge, N., Jørgensen, T. B., & Nybo, L. (2023) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-023-01902-4 · Cited by 29
Fetahi, E., Søgaard, A. S., & Sjögren, M. (2022) · Journal of Personalized Medicine · doi:10.3390/jpm12040577 · Cited by 22
“The correlation coefficients were not available for the relationship between preand post-intervention motivation scores, and therefore only the post-intervention scores were used in the meta-analysis for this outcome [27,30,31].”
MethodPharmacotherapies for Central Post‐Stroke Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis
Zheng, B., Jian, Y., Li, Y., Gu, G.-F., Luo, X., Xiaolan, L., Chen, Z., Huang, K., Yang, F., Maoxia, L., et al. (2022) · Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity · doi:10.1155/2022/3511385 · Cited by 22
“In a network meta-analysis, a p value for the determination of significant difference between two treatments is not provided, which is determined by whether a 95% CI of the SMD crossed the null value line, indicating no significant difference between the two treatments [16].”
Li, J., & Deng, S. W. (2022) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-022-01733-4 · Cited by 26
“The mean and standard deviation of ACC and RT, and sample size of each comparison (ACC and RT in the unisensory and multisensory environment) were used to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) effect sizes (Andrade, 2020), Hedges g, which was derived from Cohen’s d with different calculations for dependent…”
MethodYan, R., Cai, H., Cui, Y., Su, D., Cai, G., Lin, F., & Feng, T. (2022) · European Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1111/ene.15651 · Cited by 23
“MDs provide real- life implications with clinical units [33] and so they were used to combine UPDRS outcomes in the core analysis.”
MethodSayaman, R. W., Miyano, M., Carlson, E. G., Senapati, P., Zirbes, A., Shalabi, S., Todhunter, M. E., Seewaldt, V. E., Neuhausen, S. L., Stampfer, M. R., et al. (2024) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.95720 · Cited by 20
Hung, K., Ko, C., Hsu, C., Pang, Y.-L., Chen, J., & Sun, C. (2022) · Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésie · doi:10.1007/s12630-022-02295-0 · Cited by 21
Barbosa, P. O., El‐Magd, N. F. A., Hesketh, J. E., & Bermano, G. (2022) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms232415762 · Cited by 21
“The standardized mean difference was used for this meta-analysis as the studies assessed selenium levels and measured GPX3 activity using different methods, allowing expression of the effect size between cases and controls relative to the variability observed in each study [32].”
MethodPattern Electroretinogram in Ocular Hypertension, Glaucoma Suspect and Early Manifest Glaucoma Eyes
Afflitto, G. G., Chou, T., Swaminathan, S. S., Aiello, F., Gedde, S. J., Nucci, C., & Porciatti, V. (2023) · Ophthalmology Science · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2023.100322 · Cited by 21
Wainstein, M., Spyrison, N., Dai, D., Ghadimi, M., Chavez-Iñiguez, J. S., Rizo-Topete, L. M., Citarella, B. W., Merson, L., Pole, J. D., Granado, R. C.-D., et al. (2023) · Kidney International Reports · doi:10.1016/j.ekir.2023.05.015 · Cited by 21
Li, T., Yang, G., Zhong, W., Liu, J., Ding, Z., & Ding, Y. (2024) · Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research · doi:10.1186/s13018-024-04543-z · Cited by 21
“According to the Cohen’s criteria, an SMD ≤ 0.2 for a covariate indicates a small difference [18].”
MethodInfluentialAlshehri, M. A., Alzahrani, H. A., van den Hoorn, W., Klyne, D. M., Vette, A. H., Hendershot, B. D., Roberts, B. W. R., Larivière, C., Barbado, D., Vera-García, F. J., et al. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0296968 · Cited by 22
“SMD effect sizes can be classified as trivial ( > 0.2), small (0.2–0.5), medium (0.5–0.8) or large ( > 0.8) [63].”
BackgroundInfluentialBartoli, F., Bassetti, C., Gazzola, M., Gianfelice, L., Cavaleri, D., Crocamo, C., & Carrà, G. (2024) · BJPsych Open · doi:10.1192/bjo.2024.51 · Cited by 21
“25 Data analyses were performed using Stata statistical software, release 17 (StataCorp LLC, 2021).”
Munro, N. R., Teague, S., Somoray, K., Simpson, A., Budden, T., Jackson, B., Rebar, A., & Dimmock, J. (2026) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2025-110301 · Cited by 23
“Only meta-analyses reporting standardised mean difference (SMD) 37 or Hedges g 38 were eligible.”
Hsu, Y.-Y. A., Nguyen, T. T. B., Chou, Y.-J., & Ho, C.-L. (2024) · European Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102550 · Cited by 23
Wang, T., Tang, C., Jiang, X., Guo, Y., Zhu, S., & Xu, Q. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/47704 · Cited by 20
“The value of SMD 0.5 would be interpreted as small, SMD ≥ 0.5 as medium, and SMD ≥ 0.8 as large effect size [25].”
InfluentialYau, C. E., Ho, E. C. K., Ong, N. Y., Loh, C. J. K., Mai, A. S., & Tan, E. (2024) · Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology · doi:10.1002/acn3.52160 · Cited by 20
Adimassu, Z., Tibebe, D., Tamene, L., & Abera, W. (2025) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42796 · Cited by 23
“…mean difference (SMD) is calculated by dividing the difference between the means of two groups by the pooled standard deviation of the two groups [26,27]: Where t X t is the sample mean of the treatment group, X c is the sample mean of the control group, S t 2 is the standard deviation in the…”
RetractedKhorasani, F., Iranifard, E., & Roudsari, R. L. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-23314-x · Cited by 28
“The standardized mean differences (SMD), also known as Cohen’s d, is used when different studies use different instruments/tools to measure the same outcomes [41, 42].”
Kim, S. K., Lee, M., Jeong, H. C., & Jang, Y. M. (2022) · Japan Journal of Nursing Science · doi:10.1111/jjns.12476 · Cited by 23
Prakash, K. C., Virtanen, M., Törmälehto, S., Myllyntausta, S., Pentti, J., Vahtera, J., & Stenholm, S. (2022) · European Journal of Ageing · doi:10.1007/s10433-022-00745-8 · Cited by 20
“The effect size is presented as standardized mean difference (SMD) which is the ratio of mean change and standard deviation (SD) (SMD = mean change/ SD) (Andrade 2020).”
BackgroundZieliński, G., & Gawda, P. (2024) · Journal of Personalized Medicine · doi:10.3390/jpm14060655 · Cited by 22
Hasegawa, K., Motoki, N., Inaba, Y., Toubou, H., Shibazaki, T., Nakayama, S. F., Kamijima, M., Tsukahara, T., Nomiyama, T., & the Japan Environment and Children’s Study Group (2024) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp13617 · Cited by 20
Effect of rail transit on travel behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Wang, J., Cheng, W., Lü, Y., & Wang, D. (2023) · Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.trd.2023.103882 · Cited by 20
Ma, F., He, J., & Wang, Y. (2024) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2024.1379605 · Cited by 19
“This approach utilizes statistical units to standardize various clinical units, effectively reducing discrepancies caused by differing testing methods and clinical units (Andrade, 2020).”
MethodWu, P. (2024) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106464 · Cited by 19
Chen, X., Yan, L., Yang, J., Xu, C., & Lv, Y. (2025) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2025.1552358 · Cited by 19
Du, Q., Ren, Y., Meng, Z.-L., He, H., & Meng, S. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/78186 · Cited by 39
Tu, L., Navaratnam, D. S., Melnick, E. R., Forman, H. P., Venkatesh, A. K., Malhotra, A., Yaesoubi, R., Sureshanand, S., Sheth, K. N., & Mahajan, A. K. (2023) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.23.29617 · Cited by 19
Ashmawy, R., Zaki, A., Baess, A. I., & Sayed, I. E. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-40489-8 · Cited by 19
“Then, we considered the magnitude of the effect according to Cohen’s d scale 30 ; SMD more than zero means favoring the treatment side than placebo, if SMD values 0.2–0.5 it is considered a small effect or contribution, 0.5–0.8 medium, and > 0.8 considered a large effect.”
InfluentialVandenbrande, J., Jamaer, B., Stessel, B., van Hilst, E., Callebaut, I., Yılmaz, A., Packlé, L., Sermeus, L. A., Blanco, R., & Jalil, H. (2023) · Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine · doi:10.1136/rapm-2023-104439 · Cited by 19
Wang, C.-A., Lin, L., Chen, J., Wang, W.-J., & Wu, V. (2024) · Cardiovascular Diabetology · doi:10.1186/s12933-024-02424-7 · Cited by 22
“Variables were considered adequately matched if the between-group difference was below 0.1, indicating a small difference [39].”
BackgroundInfluentialZhang, X., Ma, H., Lam, C. Y., Ho, G. W., & Mak, Y. W. (2023) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2023.05.007 · Cited by 17
Du, S., & Ning, Z. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1449886 · Cited by 21
Lombardi, G., Pancani, S., Manca, R., Mitolo, M., Baiardi, S., Massa, F., Coppola, L., Franzese, M., Nicolai, E., Guerini, F. R., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms252312916 · Cited by 21
“SMDs of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 are considered small, medium, and large, respectively [52], whereas a value of 0 is indicative of equivalence between p-tau levels in MCI converters and non-converters.”
InfluentialPra, A. D., Ghadjar, P., Ryu, H. M., Proudfoot, J. A., Hayoz, S., Michalski, J. M., Spratt, D. E., Liu, Y., Schär, C., Berlín, A., et al. (2025) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2025.01.017 · Cited by 18
A systematic review of privacy-preserving techniques for synthetic tabular health data
Hyrup, T., Lautrup, A. D., Zimek, A., & Schneider–Kamp, P. (2025) · Discover Data · doi:10.1007/s44248-025-00022-w · Cited by 20
Filiform needle acupuncture for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Du, S., Guo, W., Yang, C., Chen, S., Guo, S., Du, S., Du, Z.-M., Fei, Y., & Zhao, J. (2022) · Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.joim.2022.08.004 · Cited by 18
Xu, D., Fu, L., Pan, D., Chu, Y., Feng, M., Lü, Y., Yang, C., Wang, Y., Xia, J., & Sun, G. (2022) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2022.2117783 · Cited by 19
“…subgroup analysis only included five meta-analyses, in which two studies calculated the pooled effects with WMD (depends on their respective weight and effect size), one used SMD (depends on their respective SD and MD) and two used MD (Andrade 2020), the heterogeneity between studies was notable.”
MethodNanoplastics modulate the outcome of a zooplankton–microparasite interaction
Mavrianos, S., Manzi, F., Agha, R., Noemi, A., Schampera, C., & Wolinska, J. (2023) · Freshwater Biology · doi:10.1111/fwb.14068 · Cited by 21
Sebastian, S. A., Padda, I., & Johal, G. (2024) · Current Problems in Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2024.102426 · Cited by 18
Brindisino, F., Marruganti, S., Lorusso, D., Cavaggion, C., & Ristori, D. (2024) · Physiotherapy Research International · doi:10.1002/pri.2106 · Cited by 18
“The SMD was considered as small (range 0.2–0.5), medium (range 0.5–0.8) or large ( > 0.8) effect size (Andrade, 2020).”
InfluentialAzzam, A., Khaled, H., Alrefaey, A., Basil, A., Ibrahim, S., Elsayed, M. S., Khattab, M., Nabil, N., Abdalwanees, E., & Halim, H. (2025) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-024-07111-9 · Cited by 32
“SMD values of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 represent small, medium, and large effects, respectively [15].”
InfluentialJanitra, F. E., Chen, R., Lin, H., Sung, C., Chu, H., Lee, C., Niu, S., Liu, H., Chang, L., Banda, K. J., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1111/inm.13334 · Cited by 18
The current status of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) in Iran: A systematic narrative review
Akbari, M., Seydavi, M., Davis, C. H., Levin, M. E., Twohig, M. P., & Zamani, E. (2022) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2022.08.007 · Cited by 17
Jazayeri, S. B., Sabayan, B., Pirahanchi, Y., Ravi, V., Carrión‐Penagos, J., Bowers, J., Modir, R., Agrawal, K., Hemmen, T., Meyer, B. C., et al. (2024) · Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery · doi:10.1136/jnis-2024-022457 · Cited by 17
Hawkins, M. R., Thottacherry, E. D., Juthani, P. V., Aronson, J., Chang, A., Amanatullah, D. F., Kittle, J. T., Shen, S., Holubar, M. K., Andrews, J. R., et al. (2024) · Open Forum Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofae683 · Cited by 17
“An SMD of 0.2 to 0.5 indicated a small imbalance, 0.5 to 0.8 medium, and > 0.8 large [10].”
InfluentialKeramatian, K., Pinto, J. V., Tsang, V. W. L., Chakrabarty, T., & Yatham, L. N. (2025) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.2025.63 · Cited by 17
“27 The significance level was set at 0.05.”
InfluentialKazemain, E., Ansari, S., Davoodi, S. H., Patterson, W. B., Shakerinava, P., Wagner, C. L., & Amouzegar, A. (2021) · Advances in Nutrition · doi:10.1093/advances/nmab126 · Cited by 17
Özden, F. (2022) · World Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2022.03.143 · Cited by 17
Ashra, F., Chen, R., Kang, X. L., Chiang, K., Pien, L., Jen, H., Liu, D., Hsiao, S. S., & Chou, K. (2022) · Intensive and Critical Care Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2022.103257 · Cited by 17
“…session Length of therapy: 1 day Total time: 16 hours Intervention time from admission: NA PEEP Ventilator PaO2/ FiO2 Baseline and 16 h after prone 2 Avdeev et al., 2021 Prospective cohort study Russia NonICU 22 Age: Mean = 48.5 Range = 39.8–62.8 Gender: M = 16 F = 6 Mean BMI: 28.7 Comorbidities:…”
InfluentialÖzden, F. (2022) · Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2022.107579 · Cited by 17
Effectiveness of respiratory rehabilitation in patients with COVID ‐19: A meta‐analysis
Ashra, F., Jen, H., Liu, D., Lee, T., Pien, L., Chen, R., Lin, H., & Chou, K. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.16692 · Cited by 18
Lin, H., Liu, Q., Zhao, L., Liu, Z., Cui, H., Li, P., Fan, H., & Guo, L. (2023) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms24076090 · Cited by 16
“SMD is the quotient of the difference between the two means and the pooled standard deviation, which eliminates the effect of different units in the analysis [36].”
BackgroundBrindisino, F., Girardi, G., Crestani, M., Fiore, A., Giovannico, G., Garzonio, F., Venturin, D., & Struyf, F. (2023) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2023.2251880 · Cited by 17
“SMD values of 0.2–0.5 could be considered as small, values of 0.5–0.8 as medium, and values >0.8 as large [36].”
InfluentialCavaleri, D., Crocamo, C., Morello, P., Bartoli, F., & Carrà, G. (2024) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm13020583 · Cited by 17
“Effect sizes were evaluated according to standard cut-offs for SMDs (0.2: small; 0.5: medium; 0.8: large effect) [33].”
MethodInfluentialLou, X.-J., Qiu, D., Ren, Z.-Y., Hashimoto, K., Zhang, G.-F., & Yang, J. (2024) · Asian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2024.103997 · Cited by 17
Efficacy of deep brain stimulation for Tourette syndrome and its comorbidities: A meta-analysis
Zhang, A., Liu, T., Xu, J., Zhao, Q., Wang, X., Jiang, Z., Liang, S., Cui, Y., & Li, Y. (2024) · Neurotherapeutics · doi:10.1016/j.neurot.2024.e00360 · Cited by 17
“For the secondary outcomes, the mean improvement in the severity of OCB, depression symptoms, or anxiety symptoms was measured using the standardized mean difference (SMD) [19].”
MethodEffect of zinc supplementation on glycemic biomarkers: an umbrella of interventional meta-analyses
Daneshvar, M., Ghaheri, M., Safarzadeh, D., Karimi, F., Adib-Hajbagheri, P., Ahmadzade, M., & Haedi, A. R. (2024) · Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome · doi:10.1186/s13098-024-01366-0 · Cited by 17
“Since SMD adjusts results based on SD, in some analyzes results from WMD differed from SMD, which could be due to wide SD range [32].”
Johnston, A., Petrcich, W., Smith, G. N., Fell, D. B., Tanuseputro, P., Coutinho, T. A., & Edwards, J. D. (2025) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.124.072418 · Cited by 18
“37 In this study, ASDs >10% were considered indicative of potentially meaningful differences; however, in line with best practices in causal inference, statistical measures such as the magnitude of ASDs should not be used to classify a variable as a confounder.”
Tung, W. S., Daher, M., Covarrubias, O., Herber, A., & Gianakos, A. L. (2024) · Foot and Ankle Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.fas.2024.11.005 · Cited by 16
Li, B., Chen, C., Zhou, X., Liu, H., Zhou, Z., Wang, X., Liang, J., Guo, Y., & Liang, S. (2025) · Antioxidants · doi:10.3390/antiox14050609 · Cited by 18
“This study employed standardized mean difference (SMD) effect sizes using Hedges’ g with 95% CI to evaluate differences between intervention and control groups, a metric suitable for integrating continuous variables with inconsistent measurement units across studies [29].”
Zhou, W.-S., Mao, S., Zhang, S., Xu, H., & Li, W.-L. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1126126 · Cited by 22
“Standardized mean difference (SMD) was employed if there were different outcome measures (49).”
MethodFakontis, C., Iakovidis, P., Kasimis, K., Lytras, D., Koutras, G., Fetlis, A., & Algiounidis, I. (2023) · Physical Therapy in Sport · doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2023.09.009 · Cited by 16
Russo, G. I., Saleh, R. A., Finocchi, F., Juma, A. R., Durairajanayagam, D., Kahraman, O., Söğütdelen, E., Sokolakis, I., Vishwakarma, R. B., Bahar, F., et al. (2024) · The World Journal of Men s Health · doi:10.5534/wjmh.230260 · Cited by 16
“The standardized mean difference (SMD) was chosen as the effect size for statistical comparison between cases and controls to allow comparison between studies that measured the outcome using different instruments [14].”
Kampman, J. M., Plasmans, K. Y. Q., Hermanides, J., Hollmann, M. W., Repping, S., & Weiland, N. H. S. (2024) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1016/j.bja.2024.02.011 · Cited by 16
Yan, Y., Chan, L. M. L., Wang, M. P., Kwok, J. Y. Y., Anderson, C. S., & Lee, J. J. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01067-y · Cited by 20
“In this review, a negative g indicates the intervention group mean is lower than the control mean 52 , with the absolute value of g = 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 for small, medium, and large effects, respectively 53 .”
BackgroundInfluentialLu, Q., Liang, Q., & Xi, Y. (2024) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2024.1419747 · Cited by 16
Jhu, J., Fang, Y., Huang, C., Liou, H., Chen, M., & Tsai, M. (2024) · Journal of Diabetes Investigation · doi:10.1111/jdi.14361 · Cited by 17
“Standardized mean differences (SMD) were also assessed, with a SMD of 0.1 indicating a minor difference between groups 24,25 .”
InfluentialLee, J., Yao, Z., Boakye, E., & Blaha, M. J. (2024) · Tobacco Induced Diseases · doi:10.18332/tid/186932 · Cited by 15
“MD was computed instead of standardized mean differences, as all FMD data across studies used the same unit of percent 19 .”
MethodZhu, M., Wong, S. Y. S., Zhong, C. C., Zeng, Y., Xie, L., Lee, E. K. P., Chung, V. C., & Sit, R. W. S. (2025) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2025.112061 · Cited by 16
Wang, L., Montgomery, A., Smerdely, P., Paulik, O., Barton, C., Halcomb, E., Hui, H., Pieri, C., Lopez, M. R., Teus, J. K., et al. (2025) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afaf117 · Cited by 26
“The inverse variance method using a fixed-effects model was applied to calculate the mean differ-ence (MD) and the standardised mean difference (SMD), since the same outcomes were assessed using different tools in the included studies [37].”
Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists and Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
Ahuja, A., Paredes, A. A., & Young, B. K. (2025) · JAMA ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2025.3821 · Cited by 7
Lang, S., Ma, J., Gong, S., Wang, Y., Dong, B., & Ma, X. (2022) · Bioelectromagnetics · doi:10.1002/bem.22419 · Cited by 16
“…experimental group and the mean of the control group; SMD is the MD divided by the standard deviations; RR is the ratio of the incidence of events in the experimental group to the incidence of events in the control group; I2 is a percentage to reflect heterogeneity between studies) [Andrade, 2020].”
ResultDisparities in weight changes during the COVID ‐19 pandemic‐related lockdown in youths
Koebnick, C., Sidell, M. A., Li, X., Resnicow, K., Kunani, P. S., Young, D. R., & Woolford, S. J. (2022) · Obesity · doi:10.1002/oby.23645 · Cited by 16
Mariano, I. M., Amaral, A. L., Ribeiro, P. A. B., & Puga, G. M. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-38041-9 · Cited by 15
Tan, X. W., Goh, S. E., Lee, J. J., Vanniasingham, S. D., Brunelin, J., Lee, J., & Tor, P. C. (2023) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci14010018 · Cited by 15
“Standardized mean difference (SMD, Cohen’s d) [27] was calculated for pooling of studies with either PANSS-N or SANS scale measurement after iTBS treatment using the inverse variance random effects model in Review Manager 5.4.”
MethodInfluentialIeong, C., Chen, T., Chen, S., Gao, X., Yan, K., He, W., Hong, H., Gu, Y., Chen, X., & Yuan, G. (2024) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-024-05197-6 · Cited by 14
“Since different ADB scales were used in each study to calculate ADB, the SMD could eliminate the effect of absolute magnitude and the effect of the metric on the outcome [35].”
MethodLi, H., Zang, C., Xu, Z., Pan, W., Rajendran, S., Chen, Y., & Wang, F. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01803-y · Cited by 15
“However,itislargely unknownhowto leveragetheTTEand FLframeworkstoestimatereal-worldtreatmenteffectsusingthedistributed siteswithoutsharingpatient-levelinformation.”
Bakker-Bons, M., Hijmering, R. M. J., Soer, R., & Wolff, A. P. (2025) · BJA Open · doi:10.1016/j.bjao.2025.100487 · Cited by 18
“32 For both odds ratio and correlation ( r ), the formulas described by Borenstein and colleagues 29 and Chinn 33 were used.”
Zhao, X., Huang, X., Cai, Y., Cao, T., & Wan, Q. (2022) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2022.2026879 · Cited by 14
“Considering that the measurements for the same outcome of interest were different across studies, we calculated the standard mean differences (SMDs) to pool the effect size, along with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) (Andrade, 2020).”
MethodFuertes-Kenneally, L., Blasco‐Peris, C., Casanova‐Lizón, A., Baladzhaeva, S., Climent, V. E., Sarabia, J. M., & Manresa‐Rocamora, A. (2023) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2023.1196665 · Cited by 17
“The mean difference (MD) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as the effect size (ES) index, as the eligible studies had to measure relative changes in brachial FMD (inclusion criteria) (Andrade, 2020).”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Andrade, C.
- Affiliations
- National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Andrade, Chittaranjan
- Venue
- The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc
- Published
- 2020-09-22
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 5
- ISSN
- 0160-6689 (ISSN-L)
- 1555-2101
- OpenAlex
- W3089264828
- Cited by
- 841
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 158 · 2025: 221 · 2024: 199 · 2023: 161 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 25
- FWCI
- 40.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- mean difference, standardized mean difference, Cohen's d, effect size, meta-analysis, change scores, rating instruments, effect size heterogeneity
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Statistics as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic
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