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 501–600 of 842
Krefting, J., Krüger, N., Frieß, C., Gräßer, C., Schmieder, R., Starnecker, F., Schwab, M., Kufner, S., Trenkwalder, T., Voll, F., et al. (2025) · Clinical Research in Cardiology · doi:10.1007/s00392-025-02781-7 · Cited by 2
“[18] A Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to the data of the overall cohort.”
Xie, G., Liao, J., Tang, X., Fu, H., Liu, D., Deng, L., Wang, T., & Hong, X. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-026-09458-3 · Cited by 3
“In accordance with the Cochrane criteria for interpreting the pooled effect size, an absolute SMD value of approximately 0.2 to less than 0.5 signifies a small effect size, a value of around 0.5 to less than 0.8 denotes a moderate effect size, and a value of ≥ 0.8 indicates a large effect size [45].”
InfluentialSeçer, E., & Seçer, M. B. (2025) · European Journal of Physiotherapy · doi:10.1080/21679169.2025.2609085 · Cited by 2
Li, B., Chen, C., Zhou, X., Liu, H., Zhou, Z., Wang, X., Liang, J., Guo, Y., & Liang, S. (2026) · Aquaculture Reports · doi:10.1016/j.aqrep.2025.103356 · Cited by 2
Ailani, J., Okonkwo, R. I., Johnston, E., Hochstetler, H. M., Martinez, B., Zagar, A. J., Nicholson, R. A., Vargas, B. B., Muenzel, E. J., & Lipton, R. B. (2026) · Headache The Journal of Head and Face Pain · doi:10.1111/head.70014 · Cited by 2
Zhao, Q., Hong, Z. C., Wei, T. T., Jiang, Y. T., Zeng, H., & Miao, G. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1741998 · Cited by 3
“SMD standardizes results across diverse scales, enabling the comparison of effect sizes despite different measurement tools (31).”
The Role of Income and Health Insurance on Migraine Care: Results of the OVERCOME (US) Study
Lipton, R. B., Martinez, B., Buse, D. C., Mehrabadi, A. S., Zagar, A. J., Cohen, F., Shapiro, R. E., Hoyt, M. L., Sait, A., Nicholson, R. A., et al. (2026) · Advances in Therapy · doi:10.1007/s12325-025-03428-9 · Cited by 2
“The thresholds for SMD are as follows: SMD 0.2 = no difference, 0.2–0.49 = small difference, 0.5–0.79 = moderate difference, and 0.8 or more = large difference [20].”
InfluentialHuang, L., Xiao, D., Yan, L., Liao, J., Yang, M., & He, F. (2026) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2025.1693888 · Cited by 2
“We calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) for all variables presented in Table 1 (27).”
InfluentialLim, K. S. A., Tng, W. X. A., Theng, W. D. B., Lee, B. T. K., Chin, C. F., Li, K. Z., & Moss, H. E. (2026) · Frontiers in Ophthalmology · doi:10.3389/fopht.2025.1691582 · Cited by 2
“Through the utilization of SMD, where the mean differences are transformed to a common scale, the differences between the OCT machines were accounted for in the analysis (14, 119), allowing for the generalization of the results (120).”
Hubayni, R. A., Qedair, J. T., Aljahdali, F. F., Alotaibi, N., Almuzaini, Y., Almuntashri, M. M., & Alhazzaa, B. (2026) · Clinical ophthalmology · doi:10.2147/opth.s575562 · Cited by 2
Terada, T., Kambič, T., Noda, T., Kai, G., Taylor, R. S., Reed, J., & Kamiya, K. (2026) · Journal of sport and health science/Journal of Sport and Health Science · doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2026.101136 · Cited by 2
Xu, Y., Yang, T., Xu, T., Lu, J., Qiu, S., & Tao, Y. (2026) · Journal of Human Hypertension · doi:10.1038/s41371-026-01145-6 · Cited by 2
“The selection process is shown in Supplementary Figure S1.”
Shqara, R. A., Ganem, N., Aiob, A., Wolf, M. F., Lowenstein, L., & Mikhail, S. M. (2026) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-026-06588-6 · Cited by 2
“SMDs were interpreted using conventional thresholds: SMDs of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 are considered small, medium, and large respectively [29, 30].”
InfluentialAntidepressant Use Among US Nursing Home Residents With Dementia
Liang, S., Lapane, K. L., Ott, B. R., Tjia, J., Baek, J., Yuan, Y., & Alcusky, M. J. (2026) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.70492 · Cited by 2
“Between-group standardized differences were calculated for each covariate; standardized differences > 0.10 were considered noteworthy [27].”
InfluentialZhang, C., Xu, Y., Li, J., Fekete, G., & Gu, Y. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13179699 · Cited by 2
“Therefore if there was no participant lost follow-up or the data analysis of the study was according to the intention-to-treat principle, n 1 , n 2 , and N would be in same value [33,34].”
MethodWang, X., Liu, X., Zhong, Q., Wu, T., Wu, Y., Yang, Y., Chen, B., Jing, H., Tang, Y., Jin, J., et al. (2023) · Radiotherapy and Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109902 · Cited by 2
Mannion, A. F., Mariaux, F. B., Werth, P. M., Pearson, A. M., Lurie, J. D., Fekete, T. F., Kohler, M., Haschtmann, D., Kleinstück, F. S., Jeszenszky, D. J., et al. (2024) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-024-08157-1 · Cited by 2
“Standardised mean differences were calculated to determine the magnitude of the effect across these comparisons with thresholds of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 representing small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively [22].”
InfluentialRakhmawati, H. S. N., Wungu, C. D. K., Purwanto, B. T., & Andarianto, A. (2024) · Tzu Chi Medical Journal · doi:10.4103/tcmj.tcmj_144_23 · Cited by 2
“Pooled MD is not suitable for our case since pooled SMD is used when multiple studies utilize various instruments or units to measure the same outcome [19].”
MethodKontturi, M., Virtanen, M., Myllyntausta, S., Prakash, K. C., Pentti, J., Vahtera, J., & Stenholm, S. (2024) · European Journal of Ageing · doi:10.1007/s10433-024-00802-4 · Cited by 2
“For example, in large samples, even small and non-significant differences can be statistically significant (Andrade 2020).”
BackgroundMethodAl-Qudsi, O. H., Ellis, A. R., Krishnamoorthy, V., Ohnuma, T., Patoli, D. M., Taicher, B. M., Mamoun, N. F., Pant, P., Wongsripuemtet, P., Cobert, J. M., et al. (2024) · Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia · doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2024.06.041 · Cited by 2
Zhou, T., Zeng, A., Levit, T., Gallo, L., Kim, P., Chen, A., Cohen, D., Dunn, E., & Thoma, A. (2024) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000011672 · Cited by 2
“38,39 If the mean difference exceeds the MID, a true clinical difference is demonstrated.”
How to conduct a meta-analysis in hand surgery. Part I: principles and procedures
Rosales, R. S., & Ruettermann, M. (2024) · Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) · doi:10.1177/17531934241262938 · Cited by 2
“Depending on the variance used in the denominator, different SMD can be supported for MA, such as Cohen’s d, Hedges’ g and Glass’ delta (Andrade, 2020).”
Trends of common laboratory biomarkers after SARS-CoV-2 infection
Meirman, T. D., Shapira, B., Balicer, R. D., Rokach, L., & Dagan, N. (2024) · Journal of Infection · doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2024.106318 · Cited by 2
Brooker, P. G., Poelman, A. A. M., Livingstone, K. M., Collins, C. E., Mihrshahi, S., Sambell, R., Wu, J. H. Y., & Hendrie, G. A. (2024) · Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1111/jhn.13398 · Cited by 2
Liao, H., Cheng, C., Chen, H., Chen, J., Pan, H., Huang, T., & Wu, V. (2024) · Clinical Kidney Journal · doi:10.1093/ckj/sfae385 · Cited by 4
“The balance of baseline characteristics in the propensity score-matched populations was assessed using the standardized difference, with a value 0.1 considered indicative of a small difference [17 ].”
InfluentialYu, Y., Fang, J., & Chen, H. (2025) · Early Child Development and Care · doi:10.1080/03004430.2024.2448678 · Cited by 2
“A better intervention effect has been tested in recent years (2020 to now).”
Estimating of the causal effect of land use mixed on adult asthma prevalence in New York State
Ren, C., Shi, Z., Tian, H., Zhao, R., Huang, C., Qiao, Q., & Yao, J. (2025) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2025.106125 · Cited by 2
Geriatrics-Focused vs Traditional Primary Care in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System
Hastings, S. N., Houtven, C. H. V., Stanwyck, C., Perfect, C. R., Seidenfeld, J., Stechuchak, K. M., McConnell, E. S., Plassman, B. L., Byrd, K. G., Whitfield, C. L., et al. (2025) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.54865 · Cited by 2
Lombardi, M. J., Holck, E. N., Jerónimo, A., Salinas, P., Gonzalo, N., Christiansen, E. H., & Escaned, J. (2025) · Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102452 · Cited by 2
“13,14 Raw effect size data were pooled using the “ metacont ” function in R software comparing between group MD and/or SMD, as appropriate, and presented as pooled estimates with 95% CIs using forest plots for each outcome of interest.”
Evaluating flexible learning adoption by the Philippine secondary school Teachers
Balbin, S. A., Abenes, F. M. D., Yangco, M. E., & Opulencia, K. Y. (2025) · Diversitas Journal · doi:10.48017/dj.v10i1.3146 · Cited by 2
“Assessment and interpretation of teachers' overall confidence and preparedness in using different online platforms and instructional approaches were conducted using mean scores (Andrade, 2020).”
Hao, K., Wadey, C. A., BARKER, A. R., & Williams, C. A. (2025) · Open Heart · doi:10.1136/openhrt-2024-003091 · Cited by 2
Lee, M. Y., Heo, K., Shin, J., & Lee, J. (2025) · Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy · doi:10.1007/s10557-025-07702-4 · Cited by 2
“All SMDs were below 0.3, meeting Cohen’s acceptable range for statistical validity [44].”
InfluentialCarlson, E. G., Lopez, J. C., Yamaguchi, Y., Gibson, J., Priceman, S. J., & LaBarge, M. A. (2025) · Breast Cancer Research · doi:10.1186/s13058-025-02040-7 · Cited by 2
“GraphPad Prism v.9.3.1 was used to perform two-tailed unpaired T-tests.”
InfluentialGao, H., Wang, G., Zhang, X., Guo, H., Pang, L., & Gu, J. (2025) · Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2025.05.193 · Cited by 5
Barriault, S., Motz, M., Firasta, L., McDowell, H., Labelle, P., Poole, N., & Racine, N. M. (2025) · Infant Mental Health Journal · doi:10.1002/imhj.70029 · Cited by 2
“The SMD can be interpreted like Cohen’s d , whereby a small effect size is .2, a medium effect size is .5, and a large effect size is .8 (Andrade, 2020).”
Røe, C., Heide, M., Søberg, H. L., Brunborg, C., Hoksrud, A. F., Myhre, K., Brox, J. I., & Mørk, M. (2025) · Journal of Foot and Ankle Research · doi:10.1002/jfa2.70067 · Cited by 2
“Mental health was also less affected than physical health in the present population, and close to the reported level in the general population at 12 months follow‐up [24].”
Vitamin Interventions in ASD and ADHD: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Shen, Y., Xie, Y., Zheng, Y., Zheng, Y., & Liu, Y. (2025) · Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment · doi:10.2147/ndt.s553063 · Cited by 3
LaMarca, A., Karim, R., Larsen, G., Tse, I., WechslerPT, S., Gauthier, L. V., & Keysor, J. J. (2025) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/pzaf117 · Cited by 2
Yang, G., Zhang, R., Xu, B., Yang, Y., Wang, Y., Xu, W., Li, P., Yu, A., Ning, S., Fu, Q., et al. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0331568 · Cited by 2
“SMDs are interpreted according to Cohen’s thresholds: values of |0.2| indicate a small effect, |0.5| a medium effect, and |0.8| or greater a large effect [29].”
InfluentialYang, S., Shen, H., You, Y., Fu, Z., Guo, S., Zhang, Y., Liu, Q., Yang, Y., Li, Y., Qin, J., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.ijcrp.2025.200543 · Cited by 2
“Standardized mean difference (SMD) and their standard errors were calculated to harmonize results across studies with different units and measurement methods [20].”
Systematic review and meta-analysis on laparoscopic cystectomy in bladder cancer
Zhu, J., Lu, Z., Chen, W., Ke, M., & Cai, X. (2022) · Translational Andrology and Urology · doi:10.21037/tau-22-203 · Cited by 2
“For indicators with different units of variables, WMD is for analysis to eliminate the influence of units and to make MDs of different dimensions can be combined (2).”
BackgroundPu, S., Song, S., Chen, H., Zhou, C., Zhang, H., Wang, K., He, J., & Zhang, J. (2022) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.1012689 · Cited by 2
Celenay, S. T., Seçer, E., & Kaya, D. O. (2024) · The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness · doi:10.23736/s0022-4707.24.15707-6 · Cited by 4
Benam, S. P., Mirabdali, S., Ebrahimi, N., Daneshvar, M., Vahedi, S., Abbasifard, F., & Rounagh, M. (2024) · Prostaglandins & Other Lipid Mediators · doi:10.1016/j.prostaglandins.2024.106872 · Cited by 2
Choi, S. J., Kunwor, S. K., Im, H. B., Choi, D., Hwang, J. H., Ahmed, M., & Han, D. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3625832/v1 · Cited by 2
O’Brien, T., & Lynch, A. M. (2023) · European Scientific Journal ESJ · doi:10.19044/esj.2023.v19n21p1 · Cited by 1
Kadar, A., Itzikovitch, R., Warschawski, Y., Morgan, S. B., & Shemesh, S. S. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm12196174 · Cited by 1
Wijn, S. R. W., Hannink, G., Thorlund, J. B., Sihvonen, R., Englund, M., & Rovers, M. M. (2023) · Acta Orthopaedica · doi:10.2340/17453674.2023.24576 · Cited by 1
“In addition, standardized differences were calculated; standardized differences of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 were considered small, medium, and large, respectively [ 20 ].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialShukri, A. S., Baharudin, F., Kassim, J., Kamil, N. A. F. M., & Hamzah, N. (2023) · Journal of Sustainable Civil Engineering and Technology · doi:10.24191/jscet.v2i2.91-103 · Cited by 1
Hu, C.-Y., Wang, J., Chen, T., & Wang, P. (2024) · Frontiers in Surgery · doi:10.3389/fsurg.2023.1308221 · Cited by 1
DeVone, F., Jutkowitz, E., Halladay, C. W., Kauth, M. R., Cohen, A. J., & Tsai, J. (2024) · LGBT Health · doi:10.1089/lgbt.2023.0327 · Cited by 1
Meta-analysis: Simplified overview for dental clinicians
Wadgave, U. (2024) · Endodontology · doi:10.4103/endo.endo_87_24 · Cited by 1
Effects of cardiorespiratory physiotherapy on lung function in stroke: a network meta-analysis
Kim, S., & Cho, S.-H. (2024) · Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/10749357.2024.2417647 · Cited by 1
“38 The results of the p -scores were also summarized using the frequentist method, where a higher-ranked probability value of the p -score for an intervention indicated a relatively more effective intervention.”
Ye, G., Ying, Y., Shen, B., Liu, J., & Lu, J. (2024) · International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2024.10.005 · Cited by 1
Ghajarzadeh, M. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-13428-9.00009-4 · Cited by 1
Rozema, L. R., Cornelius, S. L., Shiner, B. R., Watts, B. V., & Vincenti, M. P. (2024) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.20240186 · Cited by 1
Ranadive, T., Khurana, S. G., Bhinderwala, A. M., Ramachandran, S., Raghupathy, M. K., & Rao, B. K. (2025) · International Journal of Developmental Disabilities · doi:10.1080/20473869.2024.2443699 · Cited by 1
Bardet, A., Vincent, M., Portefaix, A., Claris, O., Butin, M., Patural, H., Picaud, J., Chevallier, M., Perge, K., Raverot, V., et al. (2025) · Acta Paediatrica · doi:10.1111/apa.17610 · Cited by 1
“Values of 0.2–0.5 were considered small, values of 0.5–0.8 were considered medium, and values ≥ 0.8 large [20].”
InfluentialThe use of muscle activity measures in combat shooting assessments
Coleman, J. L., McClelland, J. A., & Middleton, K. J. (2025) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2025.2452221 · Cited by 1
“…< .05) for three muscles; support ( p < .001) and trigger upper trapezius ( p = .001) and trigger brachioradialis( p = .029). there were only pairwise differences ( p < .05) for support and trigger upper trapezius (Figure 4) and sMD rm effect sizes (table 2) ranged from −.75 to .95 (andrade 2020).”
Zhao, B., Zhang, T., Chen, Y., Zhang, S., Bao, L., & Zhang, C. (2025) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-025-01788-3 · Cited by 2
“Effect sizes were assessed based on standardized mean difference values (± 0.2 = small effect, ± 0.5 = medium effect, ± 0.8 = large effect) [19].”
InfluentialNi, P., Chen, H., Ge, M., Liu, L., Wang, F., & Hu, X. (2025) · Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2025.105584 · Cited by 1
Teragawa, H., Tanaka, A., Takahashi, K., Oshita, C., Uchimura, Y., Kamei, N., Hirai, H., Shimabukuro, M., Taguchi, I., Okada, Y., et al. (2025) · Cardiovascular Diabetology · doi:10.1186/s12933-025-02745-1 · Cited by 3
“Relatively small differences (ASMD > 0.2) were observed in some baseline clinical parameters; however, no medium differences (ASMD > 0.5) were observed [47].”
InfluentialChun, S. W., Kim, H. J., Seo, J. A., Chon, S., Kim, S. E., Jung, J. H., Kim, S. S., Lee, H., Shin, S., Kim, S. H., et al. (2025) · Journal of Atherosclerosis and Thrombosis · doi:10.5551/jat.65345 · Cited by 2
“If the standardized mean difference (SMD) was equal to or less than 0.1, it was deemed indicative of comparable baseline characteristics between the two groups 26) .”
InfluentialHashmi, M. U. H., Khurana, M., Qadri, S. F., Ahmed, F. K., Iqbal, F., Mehmood, T., Farhan, W., Kumar, S., & Kumari, A. (2025) · Psychiatric Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11126-025-10152-8 · Cited by 1
“While interpreting the SMDs, we adopted the approach previously recommended, according to which 0.2–0.5 are considered small, values of 0.5–0.8 are considered medium, and values > 0.8 are considered large [44].”
InfluentialBabbs, G., Hughto, J. M. W., Hughes, L. D., Shireman, T. I., & Meyers, D. J. (2025) · Transgender Health · doi:10.1089/trgh.2024.0231 · Cited by 1
“31,32 Our goal was to isolate the association between TGD/cisgender identity and the prevalence of chronic conditions and health care utilization.”
Homayuni, M. R. A., Poshtdar, S., Sadeghi, R., Jazayeri, S. B., Ashourizadeh, H., & Ebrahimiadib, N. (2025) · Graefe s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/s00417-025-06860-3 · Cited by 1
Mei, X., Li, Y., Yeung, W., Hu, Y., Li, J., Li, M., & Yorke, J. (2025) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1155/jonm/9923240 · Cited by 1
“Te SMD represents the diference in mean outcomes between baseline and study completion, standardized by the pooled standard deviation [37].”
Psychological distress and sleep in papillary thyroid carcinoma: a case–control study
Zou, M., Liu, W., Chen, F., Gong, J., Xing, S., Zhou, Z., Huang, H., & Lv, Y. (2025) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-025-07340-y · Cited by 1
“The matching effect was evaluated via the standardized mean difference (SMD) [27], defined as follows: Dichotomous covariates (e.g., sex, smoking/alcohol use, with two mutually exclusive categories): SMD was calculated as: √ where are the proportions of the target category in the two groups, and p…”
Kung, A., Chen, Y., Liu, B., Holaday, L. W., McKendrick, K., & Siu, A. L. (2025) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph22101514 · Cited by 1
“By convention, we consider SMD values of 0.2–0.5 a small difference, 0.51–0.8 a medium difference, and >0.8 a large difference and interpret a confidence interval that lies entirely above 0 as statistically significant [65].”
InfluentialLind, D. R. G., Geissbuhler, A. R., Apostolakos, J. M., Chang, P. S., Felan, N. A., Dornan, G. J., & Ruzbarsky, J. J. (2025) · Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.asmr.2025.101297 · Cited by 1
Xiang, Y., Tang, O., & Zeng, L. (2025) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2025.1665651 · Cited by 1
“Alternatively, standard mean differences (SMD) was used as the effect size when different tools were employed (40).”
Dreyfuss, L. D., Wang, L., Nik‐Ahd, F., Shatkin‐Margolis, A., Covinsky, K. E., Boscardin, W. J., & Suskind, A. M. (2025) · Urology · doi:10.1016/j.urology.2025.10.040 · Cited by 1
Wójtowicz‐Marzec, M., Berendt, A. M., Zarzycka, D., Bogucki, J., & Kocki, J. (2025) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2025.107675 · Cited by 1
Telehealth and Online Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Treatments for High-Impact Chronic Pain
Jiang, Y., Samah, N. A., & Heng, Z. (2025) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2025.17416 · Cited by 1
Tuono, R. D. M., Louokdom, J. S., Njopwouo, M. S., & Tagny, C. T. (2025) · Thrombosis Journal · doi:10.1186/s12959-025-00804-x · Cited by 1
“A negative value means the experimental group is associated with a decrease in the evaluated parameter [44].”
Trends in Colon Cancer Colectomy Volume and Inpatient Costs, 2018-2023: A Medicare Analysis
Newton, L., Korves, C., Zwain, G., Fowler, X. P., Bellamkonda, K. S., Rosa, S., Denny, J., Huynh, J., Weinberger, D. M., Justice, A. C., et al. (2025) · Journal of Surgical Research · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2025.10.045 · Cited by 1
Wang, J., Luo, H., & Tian, T. (2025) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-025-08583-z · Cited by 1
“This approach accounted for variations in units and absolute values of the outcome indicators across the included studies [12, 13].”
Kaya, D. Ö., Seçer, E., & Celenay, S. T. (2025) · Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies · doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2025.12.031 · Cited by 1
Zhao, P., & ZHENG, J. (2026) · Pedosphere · doi:10.1016/j.pedsph.2026.01.009 · Cited by 1
Shah, R., Zelneronok, K. A., Henriquez, R., & Mansi, I. A. (2026) · European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · doi:10.1136/ejhpharm-2025-004639 · Cited by 1
“29”
Childhood Adversity Trajectories and IQ in a Cohort of Young Adult Danish Men
Clarke, R. B., Stokholm, L., Elsenburg, L. K., Heitmann, B. L., Specht, I. O., Tuffier, S., Lim, Y.-H., Andersen, Z. J., Andersen, M. S., Mortensen, E. L., et al. (2026) · Pediatrics Open Science · doi:10.1542/pedsos.2025-001154 · Cited by 1
Zhou, J., Zhang, G., Song, P., Liaw, S. Y., & Luk, T. T. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.70206 · Cited by 1
“An SMD of 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 indicated small, moderate and large effect sizes, respectively (Andrade 2020).”
Influentialde Carvalho, C. D., dos Santos, G. A., Lima, R. L. D. S., dos Santos, M. L., Bezerra, B. G. N., de Araújo, D. L. F., da Silva, F. M., de Oliveira, V. A. D., & Kamonseki, D. H. (2026) · Physiotherapy Practice and Research · doi:10.1177/22130683251411184 · Cited by 1
Jiang, M., He, Q., Ji, C., He, L., & Lu, Y. (2026) · Cardiology in Review · doi:10.1097/crd.0000000000001167 · Cited by 1
Bellamkonda, K. S., Newton, L., Korves, C., Weinberger, D., Zwain, G., Eid, M. A., Fowler, X., Ponukumati, A. S., Robertson, D. J., Wilson, M. Z., et al. (2026) · Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.gassur.2026.102344 · Cited by 1
Loureiro, C. P., dos Santos‐Ribeiro, S., Moreira‐de‐Oliveira, M. E., Laurito, L. D., Hühne, V., Torres, B., Twohig, M. P., de Menezes, G. B., & Fontenelle, L. F. (2026) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2026.01.035 · Cited by 2
Zhang, J., Liu, J., Mi, J., & Liu, R. (2026) · BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/s13102-025-01517-4 · Cited by 1
Utilization and Costs of Mobile Medical Units for Veterans Experiencing Homelessness
Yoon, J., Chow, A., Weber, J. J., Wong, E. P., Blonigen, D. M., & Tsai, J. (2026) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.55068 · Cited by 1
Stanfield, J., Arbuckle, B. B., Smith, Z. A., Burke, J. F., Li, C., Janjua, M. B., & Shakir, H. J. (2026) · Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery · doi:10.1136/jnis-2025-024565 · Cited by 1
“29 However, most studies included in this analysis lacked control groups, limiting the ability to determine whether the observed improvements reflect the direct effect of SpineJack, natural history, or placebo responses.”
Gu, A., Huang, A., Wu, B., Liu, X., Huang, C., Qiu, X., & Wang, L. (2026) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076261420265 · Cited by 4
Identification of Risk Factors for Acral Melanoma in US Veterans
Hwang, J. C., Huhmann, L., Cho, K., Goryachev, S. D., Starink, N., Weinstock, M. A., Asgari, M. M., Zheng, C., Lu, C., Feldman, T. C., et al. (2026) · JAMA Dermatology · doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.5827 · Cited by 2
Hu, W., Hu, Y., Lai, A. Y. K., Wa, L. T., He, J., Huo, R., & Wong, J. Y. H. (2026) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-026-08770-6 · Cited by 1
“An SMD of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 was interpreted as small, medium, and large, respectively [25].”
InfluentialBahetiyaer, J., Cui, J., Li, W., Zhang, J., Sun, Y., Ai, C., Liu, S., Jiang, S., Zhang, C., & Jiang, J. (2026) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu18040666 · Cited by 1
“The SMD was chosen over the MD because the included studies assessed the same inflammatory markers but potentially used different assay methods or units of measurement, making SMD appropriate for combining data across heterogeneous measurement scales [22].”
Le, T. H., Lau, E. C. Y., Lu, C. Y., Hilmer, S. N., Jeon, Y., Low, L., Nguyen, T. A., & Tan, E. C. K. (2026) · CNS Drugs · doi:10.1007/s40263-026-01282-z · Cited by 1
“The effect sizes of SMDs were interpreted as small (0.2–0.5), medium (0.5–0.8), and large (> 0.8) [24].”
InfluentialHe, Y., Liu, H., Li, W., Yu, Y., Lin, H., Shi, S., Lu, M., Luo, H., Li, X., & Guo, L. (2026) · Clinica Chimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.cca.2026.120940 · Cited by 1
Hong, J., Hallan, D. R., Stoltzfus, M. T., Bita, M., Koka, K., & Rizk, E. (2026) · Acta Neurologica Belgica · doi:10.1007/s13760-026-03019-7 · Cited by 1
“SMD quantifies the difference between cohorts, where a value of zero indicates no difference between cohorts [ 17].”
Rodrigues, A. A., Ferreira, I. M., Víquez-Umana, F. L., de Oliveira, J. S., & Mantovani, H. C. (2026) · JSFA reports · doi:10.1002/jsf2.70051 · Cited by 1
Tong, M., Qiu, Y., Liu, J., Yue, Y., Gu, J., Zeng, L., Yu, Y., & Yang, F. (2026) · General Hospital Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2026.03.022 · Cited by 1
Levis, M., Dimambro, M., Levy, J., Nerish, M., Riblet, N. B. V., & Shiner, B. R. (2026) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2026.117148 · Cited by 1
Schizas, N. C., Karagkounis, T., Zoupas, I., Sarantou, S., Nazou, G., Dedeilias, P., & Iliopoulos, D. C. (2026) · Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals · doi:10.1177/02184923261438944 · Cited by 1
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