Original metric vs. standardized effect sizes for meta-analysis of clinical data

7Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This study compared the use of the original metric effect size with the standardized effect size for clinical data in meta-analysis. The example data set included 17 controlled clinical trials dealing with the effects of progressive resistance exercise on resting diastolic blood pressure in adults. Original metric effect size showed a decrease in resting diastolic blood pressure of -2.07 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -3.60 to -0.54). From a clinical standpoint, this is considered a "small" effect. The standardized approach showed an average effect of -0.21, 95% CI= -0.39 to -0.02. This is also considered a "small" effect. When possible, use of the original metric is preferred because it can be more clinically meaningful and will enhance interpretation of blood pressure results for a wider range of readers. © 2001 by CHF, Inc.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kelley, G. A., & Tran, Z. V. (2001). Original metric vs. standardized effect sizes for meta-analysis of clinical data. Preventive Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-037X.2001.00812.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free