|
SPORTSCIENCE
· sportsci.org
|
|
|
News & Comment /
Research Resources
|
|
Misuse of Standardization to
Meta-analyze Differences in Means
Will G Hopkins, David S Rowlands
Sportscience 27, 28, 2024 (sportsci.org/2024/MisuseMeta.htm)
Internet Society for Sport Science, Auckland, New Zealand;
School of Sport Exercise and Nutrition, Massey University, Auckland, New
Zealand. Email.
|
Meta-analysts often use standardized mean differences
(SMD) to combine mean effects from studies in which the dependent variable
has been measured with different instruments or scales. The SMD is properly
calculated as the difference in means divided by a between-subject
reference-group, control-group, or pre-intervention standard deviation
(SD), usually free of measurement error. When combining mean effects from
controlled trials and crossovers, many meta-analysts divide instead by an
SD of change scores, resulting in SMDs that have no useful interpretation
and that can underestimate or grossly overestimate the magnitude of the
intervention. Others standardize using only post-intervention means and
pooled SD, which usually results in reduced precision of the SMD and
underestimation of the SMD arising from individual responses to the
intervention. These misuses of standardization were frequent in recent
meta-analyses in medical journals we surveyed; they arise apparently from
misleading advice in peer-reviewed publications and from inappropriate use
of popular meta-analysis packages. In any case, meta-analysis of any form
of SMD increases heterogeneity artifactually via differences in
standardizing SD between settings. We therefore favor other approaches to combining
mean effects of disparate measures: log transformation of factor effects (response ratios) and of percent
effects converted to factors; rescaling of psychometrics to percent of
maximum range; and rescaling with minimum clinically important differences.
If meta-analysts cannot adduce clinically important thresholds for mean
effects, standardization after
meta-analysis with appropriately transformed or rescaled chosen or pooled
pre-intervention SDs is a fallback for assessing magnitudes of a
meta-analyzed mean effect in different settings.
Keywords: change-score SD, Cochrane, Comprehensive
Meta-analysis (CMA), factor effect, meta-analysis, metafor,
RevMan, standardized mean difference (SMD),
Reprint pdf · Reprint docx · Slideshow · Statistics in Medicine
pdf
|
|
|
We have long known that researchers sometimes misuse
standardization to combine mean effects in a meta-analysis. When we
encountered a particularly egregious example several years ago, we surveyed
several medical journals for the prevalence of misuse. Only ~10% of studies
used the correct standard deviations to standardize, so we decided to write
an article explaining the wrong and right ways to meta-analyze mean effects.
The emphasis of
the article was originally the misuse of standardization, but during the
review process, the editor requested a revision into a tutorial in
biostatistics covering all the methods for meta-analyzing differences in
means. The article has now (May 7) been accepted for the journal Statistics
in Medicine, where it appears with the title "Standardization
and Other Approaches to Meta-Analyze Differences in Means."
The slideshow
attached to this article was presented by one of us (WGH) in several European
universities in November 2023. The slideshow and the above abstract reflect
the original emphasis on misuse of standardization, but all the methods for
meta-analyzing mean changes are described. Make sure you view the slideshow
as a full presentation to get the benefit of the extensive animations.
Published April 2024; updated May 2024
©2024
|