Dataset Information

Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from commonly reported quantiles in meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Researchers increasingly use meta-analysis to synthesize the results of several studies in order to estimate a common effect. When the outcome variable is continuous, standard meta-analytic approaches assume that the primary studies report the sample mean and standard deviation of the outcome. However, when the outcome is skewed, authors sometimes summarize the data by reporting the sample median and one or both of (i) the minimum and maximum values and (ii) the first and third quartiles, but do not report the mean or standard deviation. To include these studies in meta-analysis, several methods have been developed to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation from the reported summary data. A major limitation of these widely used methods is that they assume that the outcome distribution is normal, which is unlikely to be tenable for studies reporting medians. We propose two novel approaches to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation when data are suspected to be non-normal. Our simulation results and empirical assessments show that the proposed methods often perform better than the existing methods when applied to non-normal data.

SUBMITTER: McGrath S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7390706 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from commonly reported quantiles in meta-analysis.

McGrath Sean S Zhao XiaoFei X Steele Russell R Thombs Brett D BD Benedetti Andrea A

Statistical methods in medical research 20200130 9

Researchers increasingly use meta-analysis to synthesize the results of several studies in order to estimate a common effect. When the outcome variable is continuous, standard meta-analytic approaches assume that the primary studies report the sample mean and standard deviation of the outcome. However, when the outcome is skewed, authors sometimes summarize the data by reporting the sample median and one or both of (i) the minimum and maximum values and (ii) the first and third quartiles, but do ...[more]

PMID: 32292115

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn systematic reviews and meta-analysis, researchers often pool the results of the sample mean and standard deviation from a set of similar clinical trials. A number of the trials, however, reported the study using the median, the minimum and maximum values, and/or the first and third quartiles. Hence, in order to combine results, one may have to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation for such trials.MethodsIn this paper, we propose to improve the existing literature in several directions. First, we show that the sample standard deviation estimation in Hozo et al.'s method (BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13, 2005) has some serious limitations and is always less satisfactory in practice. Inspired by this, we propose a new estimation method by incorporating the sample size. Second, we systematically study the sample mean and standard deviation estimation problem under several other interesting settings where the interquartile range is also available for the trials.ResultsWe demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods through simulation studies for the three frequently encountered scenarios, respectively. For the first two scenarios, our method greatly improves existing methods and provides a nearly unbiased estimate of the true sample standard deviation for normal data and a slightly biased estimate for skewed data. For the third scenario, our method still performs very well for both normal data and skewed data. Furthermore, we compare the estimators of the sample mean and standard deviation under all three scenarios and present some suggestions on which scenario is preferred in real-world applications.ConclusionsIn this paper, we discuss different approximation methods in the estimation of the sample mean and standard deviation and propose some new estimation methods to improve the existing literature. We conclude our work with a summary table (an Excel spread sheet including all formulas) that serves as a comprehensive guidance for performing meta-analysis in different situations.

Project description:BackgroundRigorous, informative meta-analyses rely on availability of appropriate summary statistics or individual participant data. For continuous outcomes, especially those with naturally skewed distributions, summary information on the mean or variability often goes unreported. While full reporting of original trial data is the ideal, we sought to identify methods for handling unreported mean or variability summary statistics in meta-analysis.MethodsWe undertook two systematic literature reviews to identify methodological approaches used to deal with missing mean or variability summary statistics. Five electronic databases were searched, in addition to the Cochrane Colloquium abstract books and the Cochrane Statistics Methods Group mailing list archive. We also conducted cited reference searching and emailed topic experts to identify recent methodological developments. Details recorded included the description of the method, the information required to implement the method, any underlying assumptions and whether the method could be readily applied in standard statistical software. We provided a summary description of the methods identified, illustrating selected methods in example meta-analysis scenarios.ResultsFor missing standard deviations (SDs), following screening of 503 articles, fifteen methods were identified in addition to those reported in a previous review. These included Bayesian hierarchical modelling at the meta-analysis level; summary statistic level imputation based on observed SD values from other trials in the meta-analysis; a practical approximation based on the range; and algebraic estimation of the SD based on other summary statistics. Following screening of 1124 articles for methods estimating the mean, one approximate Bayesian computation approach and three papers based on alternative summary statistics were identified. Illustrative meta-analyses showed that when replacing a missing SD the approximation using the range minimised loss of precision and generally performed better than omitting trials. When estimating missing means, a formula using the median, lower quartile and upper quartile performed best in preserving the precision of the meta-analysis findings, although in some scenarios, omitting trials gave superior results.ConclusionsMethods based on summary statistics (minimum, maximum, lower quartile, upper quartile, median) reported in the literature facilitate more comprehensive inclusion of randomised controlled trials with missing mean or variability summary statistics within meta-analyses.

Project description:BackgroundA recent review found that 45% of meta-analyses included statistical errors, of which, the most common was the calculation of effect sizes based on standard error (SE) rather than standard deviation (SD) [the SE/SD mix-up].ObjectivesThe first aim of this study was to assess the impact of the SE/SD mix-up on the results of one highly cited meta-analysis. Our second aim was to identify one potential source of the SE/SD mix-up, by assessing how often SE is reported as a measure of sample variability in randomised controlled trials in sports medicine.MethodsWe checked for potential SE/SD mix-ups in a 2015 meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials reporting the effects of recreational football interventions on aerobic fitness in adults. We corrected effect sizes affected by SE/SD mix-ups and re-analysed the data according to the original methodology. We compared pooled estimates of effect sizes from our re-analysis of corrected values with those of the original study. To assess how often SE was reported instead of SD as a measure of sample variance, we text mined results of randomised controlled trials from seven sports medicine journals and reported the proportion reporting of SE versus SD.ResultsWe identified potential SE/SD mix-ups in 9/16 effect sizes included in the meta-analysis describing the effects of football-based interventions versus non-exercise control. The published effect size was standardised mean difference (SMD) = 1.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91, 2.01). After correcting for SE/SD mix-ups, our re-analysis produced a smaller pooled estimate (SMD = 0.54 [95% CI 0.37, 0.71]). The original pooled estimate for trials comparing football versus running interventions was SMD = 0.68 (95% CI 0.06, 1.4). After correcting for SE/SD mix-ups and re-analysis, the effect was no longer statistically significant (SMD = 0.20 [95% CI - 0.10, 0.49)]). We found that 19.3% of randomised controlled trials reported SE rather than SD to describe sample variability. The relative frequency of the practice ranged from 0 to 25% across the seven journals sampled.ConclusionsWe found the SE/SD mix-up had inflated estimates for the effects of football on aerobic fitness. Meta-analysts should be vigilant to avoid miscalculating effect sizes. Authors, reviewers and editors should avoid and discourage (respectively) the practice of reporting SE as a measure of sample variability in sports medicine research.

Dataset Information

Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from commonly reported quantiles in meta-analysis.

Publications

Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from commonly reported quantiles in meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets