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
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Genomic data in the all of us research program
The All of Us Research Program Genomics Investigators, Manuscript Writing Group, Bick, A. G., Metcalf, G. A., Mayo, K. R., Lichtenstein, L., Rura, S., Carroll, R. J., Musick, A., Linder, J. E., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06957-x · Cited by 829
Schober, P. R., Mascha, E. J., & Vetter, T. R. (2021) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000005773 · Cited by 325
Z Scores, Standard Scores, and Composite Test Scores Explained
Andrade, C. (2021) · Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1177/02537176211046525 · Cited by 245
“So, if the M(SD) is 18(4) for the verbal memory scores in the pooled sample, a patient with a verbal memory score of 20 has a Z score of (20−18)/4, or 0.”
Self-citationManagement of Depression in Adults: A Review
Simon, G. E., Moise, N., & Mohr, D. C. (2024) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2024.5756 · Cited by 234
Virtual reality for safety training: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Scorgie, D., Feng, Z., Paes, D., Parisi, F., Yiu, T. W., & Lovreglio, R. (2023) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106372 · Cited by 284
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
