Literature DB >> 33180373

Evaluation of various estimators for standardized mean difference in meta-analysis.

Lifeng Lin1, Ariel M Aloe2.   

Abstract

Meta-analyses of a treatment's effect compared with a control frequently calculate the meta-effect from standardized mean differences (SMDs). SMDs are usually estimated by Cohen's d or Hedges' g. Cohen's d divides the difference between sample means of a continuous response by the pooled standard deviation, but is subject to nonnegligible bias for small sample sizes. Hedges' g removes this bias with a correction factor. The current literature (including meta-analysis books and software packages) is confusingly inconsistent about methods for synthesizing SMDs, potentially making reproducibility a problem. Using conventional methods, the variance estimate of SMD is associated with the point estimate of SMD, so Hedges' g is not guaranteed to be unbiased in meta-analyses. This article comprehensively reviews and evaluates available methods for synthesizing SMDs. Their performance is compared using extensive simulation studies and analyses of actual datasets. We find that because of the intrinsic association between point estimates and standard errors, the usual version of Hedges' g can result in more biased meta-estimation than Cohen's d. We recommend using average-adjusted variance estimators to obtain an unbiased meta-estimate, and the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for accurate estimation of its confidence interval.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cohen's d; Hedges' g; bias; confidence interval; meta-analysis; standardized mean difference

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33180373      PMCID: PMC7770064          DOI: 10.1002/sim.8781

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  51 in total

1.  A refined method for the meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome.

Authors:  J Hartung; G Knapp
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2001-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Can meta-analyses be trusted?

Authors:  S G Thompson; S J Pocock
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1991-11-02       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Data extraction errors in meta-analyses that use standardized mean differences.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Katja Maric; Britta Tendal
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-07-25       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  When continuous outcomes are measured using different scales: guide for meta-analysis and interpretation.

Authors:  Mohammad Hassan Murad; Zhen Wang; Haitao Chu; Lifeng Lin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2019-01-22

Review 5.  Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis.

Authors:  Jessica Gurevitch; Julia Koricheva; Shinichi Nakagawa; Gavin Stewart
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  On random-effects meta-analysis.

Authors:  D Zeng; D Y Lin
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 2.445

7.  An empirical comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in 12 894 meta-analyses.

Authors:  Dean Langan; Julian P T Higgins; Mark Simmonds
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 5.273

8.  Bias caused by sampling error in meta-analysis with small sample sizes.

Authors:  Lifeng Lin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Widening Access to Bayesian Problem Solving.

Authors:  Nicole Cruz; Saoirse Connor Desai; Stephen Dewitt; Ulrike Hahn; David Lagnado; Alice Liefgreen; Kirsty Phillips; Toby Pilditch; Marko Tešić
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2020-04-09

10.  Comparison of aggregate and individual participant data approaches to meta-analysis of randomised trials: An observational study.

Authors:  Jayne F Tierney; David J Fisher; Sarah Burdett; Lesley A Stewart; Mahesh K B Parmar
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2020-01-31       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  5 in total

1.  A penalization approach to random-effects meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yipeng Wang; Lifeng Lin; Christopher G Thompson; Haitao Chu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Pre- and post-conditioning with poly I:C exerts neuroprotective effect against cerebral ischemia injury in animal models: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zeeshan Ahmad Khan; Dewan Md Sumsuzzman; Jeonghyun Choi; George Kamenos; Yonggeun Hong
Journal:  CNS Neurosci Ther       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 7.035

3.  Predictive markers for the early prognosis of dengue severity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tran Quang Thach; Heba Gamal Eisa; AlMotsim Ben Hmeda; Hazem Faraj; Tieu Minh Thuan; Manal Mahmoud Abdelrahman; Mario Gerges Awadallah; Nam Xuan Ha; Michael Noeske; Jeza Muhamad Abdul Aziz; Nguyen Hai Nam; Mohamed El Nile; Shyam Prakash Dumre; Nguyen Tien Huy; Kenji Hirayama
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2021-10-05

4.  Effectiveness of physical activity monitors in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rasmus Tolstrup Larsen; Vibeke Wagner; Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen; Camilla Keller; Carsten Bogh Juhl; Henning Langberg; Jan Christensen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2022-01-26

5.  Meta-analysis of molecular imaging of translocator protein in major depression.

Authors:  Benjamin Eggerstorfer; Jong-Hoon Kim; Paul Cumming; Rupert Lanzenberger; Gregor Gryglewski
Journal:  Front Mol Neurosci       Date:  2022-09-26       Impact factor: 6.261

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.