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 801–842 of 842
Karimi, F. Z., Abdollahi, M., & Yas, A. (2026) · Holistic Nursing Practice · doi:10.1097/hnp.0000000000000785
Naderi-Namvar, A., Kazemi, F., Masoumi, S. Z., Jenabi, E., & Ahmadpanah, M. (2026) · Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research · doi:10.4103/ijnmr.ijnmr_265_25
“[30] The analysis adhered to a per‑protocol approach with a significance threshold set at <0.05.”
InfluentialBuse, D. C., Lipton, R. B., Mehrabadi, A. S., Zagar, A. J., Zakharyan, A., Ashina, S., Shapiro, R. E., Kim, G., Nicholson, R. A., & Muenzel, E. J. (2026) · Neurology and Therapy · doi:10.1007/s40120-026-00946-8
“SMD values 0.20 were considered to indicate no difference, 0.20–0.49 a small difference, 0.50–0.79 a moderate difference, and > 0.80 a large difference [33].”
InfluentialRienecke, R. D., Hanss, K. E., Reilly, E. E., Gorrell, S., Duffy, A., Palacios, J. E., & Mehler, P. S. (2026) · European Eating Disorders Review · doi:10.1002/erv.70155
Rujitharanawong, C., Tongsai, S., & Payne, A. S. (2026) · JID Innovations · doi:10.1016/j.xjidi.2026.100510
Ibrahim, S. N. M. M., Jaikla, C., & Pombubpa, N. (2026) · Die Naturwissenschaften · doi:10.1007/s00114-026-02134-y
“For NPK analysis, 1 mL soil extract was mixed with 0.3 g of the respective reagent, shaken for 30 s, allowed to settle for 15 min, and compared against the kit’s color chart.”
InfluentialLi, Z., Qin, R., Lv, J., Miao, B., Gong, L., Song, C., Sun, Y., Liu, W., & Chen, L. (2026) · Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2026.106378
Bogachev, V. Y., Boldin, B. V., Samenkov, A. Y., Dzhenina, O. V., Linnik, O. Z., & Kvasnikov, B. B. (2026) · Phlebology The Journal of Venous Disease · doi:10.1177/02683555261470999
Fabian, H., Verdaguer-Rodríguez, M., French, C., Machaczek, K. K., Brinsley, J., Scrivano, L., Firth, J., & Sawyer, C. S. (2026) · Mental health and physical activity · doi:10.1016/j.mhpa.2026.100807
Owusu-Ansah, E., Yiridoe, E. K., & Farooque, A. A. (2026) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2026.104921
Ang, J. E., Xu, Y., Cropley, V., Zalesky, A., & Tian, Y. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.08.01.26359479
Hosseini, S. J., Yousefabady, M. A., & Firooz, M. (2026) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076261477545
“31 A further meta-analysis examining how VR affects pain related to needle procedures in individuals under the age of 21 reported a reduction of 2.17 units based on data from eight studies.”
InfluentialAssociation of Blood Groups with Atrial Fibrillation
Öztürk, S., Sargın, F., KARAVAR, S., & Çiftçi, Ö. (2026) · International Journal of Angiology · doi:10.1055/a-2926-9453
Wu, Y., Liu, S., Luo, W., Rao, J., He, W., Windsor, J., Sutton, R., Mukherjee, R., Shi, N., & Huang, W. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2026-120485
“36 The heterogeneity of treatment effects across the included studies will be assessed using the I² statistic, with values of 25%, 50% and 75% typically representing low, moderate and high heterogeneity, respectively.”
Zoupas, I., Covell, J. M., Naranjo, J. C., Podgorsek, B., Chen, P., LaPar, D. J., & Greenleaf, C. E. (2026) · Perfusion · doi:10.1177/02676591261477954
Anaerobic antibiotic exposure and risk of maculopathy: a nationwide dual design study
Park, J., Cheon, S., Choi, Y.-S., Kim, J., Ahn, S. J., & Chung, J.-E. (2026) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2026.1840229
“Matching quality was considered adequate when all matching variables demonstrated SMDs of 0.2 or less (Andrade, 2020).”
InfluentialJang, G., Lim, J., Lee, D., Jeong, H., Min, K.-C., Choi, A. K., Won, H., & Lee, C. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10677640/v1
Donepudi, N. N., Kadali, K., Samudrala, P. K., Kolusu, A. S., Arakareddy, B. P., & Madhana, R. M. (2026) · Comparative Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1007/s00580-026-03841-8
“A p -value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant (Andrade 2020).”
InfluentialEarly Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitor Use After Acute Kidney Injury in Type 2 Diabetes
Chou, Y., Chen, J., Jiang, Z.-H., Lin, L.-C., & Wu, V. (2026) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.31231
Marrie, R. A., Bolton, J. M., Chen, X., Dvorani, E., Ekuma, O., Goodarzi, Z., Gruneir, A., Luo, J., Herrmann, N., Hoben, M., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1002/mpr.70105
Veterans' Urgent Care Use and Subsequent Utilization in the Community
Kuwonza, F. M., Palani, S., Smith, K., & Pizer, S. D. (2026) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.70162
Ge, X., Sun, H., Wu, C., & Liu, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2026.1936178
Omayer, A., Mohamed, M. I., Shahid, M., Hoque, S. M. H., Mohamed, N. E. A. M., Elsayed, E. M. A., Nassar, M., Ahmed, T., & Sattar, Y. (2026) · BMC Cardiovascular Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12872-026-06386-4
“This approach provides a scale-independent measure of effect size, allowing for more appropriate comparisons across heterogeneous study populations, particularly when absolute values or measurement scales vary between trials [19].”
Li, M., Gu, Y., Liao, J., Chen, S., Si, H., Zhou, W., Yu, J., Wang, X., Chen, H., Yang, X., et al. (2026) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.70126
Wang, J., Kou, X., Yunyun, S., Wang, F., Hu, W., Zhou, G., & Li, Z. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1903287
Asuako, P. A. G., Naser, G., Holzhauer, L. K. H., Beblo, T., & Voelcker‐Rehage, C. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1741014
“Using conventional definitions, SMD estimates of 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 were considered small, medium, and large, respectively (Andrade, 2020).”
InfluentialHong, J., Hallan, D. R., Stoltzfus, M. T., Koka, K., Bita, M., Millar, D., Schantz, K., Shehaj, A., Gizaw, N. B., & Rizk, E. (2026) · Acta Neurologica Belgica · doi:10.1007/s13760-026-03197-4
Mielmann, A. (2026) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods15193442
“To detect practical significant differences between standardized means, Cohen’s d will be calculated [32].”
Emergency General Surgery Outcomes: A Reliable Predictor of Hospital-Level Performance
Yalzadeh, D., Vadlakonda, A., Tabibian, K., Sakowitz, S., Mehta, D., Coaston, T. N., Balian, J., & Benharash, P. (2026) · The American Surgeon · doi:10.1177/00031348261491332
Zhu, J., Zhang, C., Xinpeng, X., Lu, D., Pan, W., & Li, X. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1937285
“For continuous outcomes measured by different scales, we calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) as the effect size, computed by dividing the mean difference (MD) in post-treatment scores by the pooled standard deviation (36, 37).”
Co-creative and Technological Approaches to Reducing Dementia-related Stigma
Seko, S., Hagiyama, N., Ono, A., Yamanaka, A., Takimoto, Y., Kurashima, T., & Matsukawa, H. (2026) · NTT technical review · doi:10.53829/ntr202609ra1
Zeng, X., Gao, M., & Shirai, Y. (2026) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2026_jslhr-24-00625
Ha, P. T. K., Chao, C., Hung, C.-L., Chang, H.-Y., Chen, C.-W., Lin, Y., Huang, C.-Y., Shao, Y. J., & Hsu, C.-Y. (2026) · ESC Heart Failure · doi:10.1093/eschf/xvag246
Zhuo, Y., Gao, P., Xu, S., Shang, S., Yan, Y., Kamili, K., Li, X., Wang, D., Han, J., & Tian, G. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1959589
“An absolute SMD ≥ 0.20 was considered indicative of a potentially meaningful between-group imbalance (29).”
InfluentialQiao, Z., & Gasimov, A. F. (2026) · Cogent Psychology · doi:10.1080/23311908.2026.2737276
Kabir, R., Parsa, A. D., Syed, H. Z., Sadat, S. M. A., Hasnain, S. S., & Islam, M. T. (2026) · Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health · doi:10.54103/2282-0930/31522
Ortiz, H. A. D. L. B., Chamorro-Lange, C., & Ronzio, O. A. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15207983
“Because the primary disability meta-analysis combined SPADI and DASH outcomes using SMDs, direct comparison with published MCID values was not possible [59,60].”
Chen, L., Mei, Z., Yin, X., Yin, T., Chen, T., & Luo, L. (2026) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-026-03004-4
Periocular surgery risk after glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy for type 2 diabetes
Ahuja, A. S., Paredes, A. A., Young, B. K., & Ashraf, D. C. (2026) · Orbit · doi:10.1080/01676830.2026.2750869
Zhou, B., & Shi, X. (2026) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2026.117329
Peng, S., Wu, P., Zeng, Q., Liu, L., Pan, X., Wang, S., & Feng, H. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1992560
Wang, H., Guo, L., Wang, J., Chen, Z., & Han, W. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1988584
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
