2019
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k4817
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: It is common to measure continuous outcomes using different scales (eg, quality of life, severity of anxiety or depression), therefore these outcomes need to be standardized before pooling in a meta-analysis. Common methods of standardization include using the standardized mean difference, the odds ratio derived from continuous data, the minimally important difference, and the ratio of means. Other ways of making data more meaningful to end users include transforming standardized effects back to original scale… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
134
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 165 publications
(134 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
134
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Pooled OR and 95%CI estimates were calculated using Stata/SE 12.0 to address the relationship between BMI-defined obesity and the risk of defined outcomes among patients with COVID-19. For continuous outcome variables, SMD is a measure of distance between two group means in terms of one or more variables and used as a summary statistic when outcome from each study is measured using several different scales [16]. Since all defined-indicators of quantification of VAT among studies were accepted in our meta-analysis, SMD was used as a summary statistic for included studies to evaluate VAT difference between severe COVID-19 and non-severe COVID-19 groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pooled OR and 95%CI estimates were calculated using Stata/SE 12.0 to address the relationship between BMI-defined obesity and the risk of defined outcomes among patients with COVID-19. For continuous outcome variables, SMD is a measure of distance between two group means in terms of one or more variables and used as a summary statistic when outcome from each study is measured using several different scales [16]. Since all defined-indicators of quantification of VAT among studies were accepted in our meta-analysis, SMD was used as a summary statistic for included studies to evaluate VAT difference between severe COVID-19 and non-severe COVID-19 groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the assessment of care effectiveness, the ratio of mean effectiveness scores associated with the intervention and control group was calculated. The use of a ratio helps account for disparities in the measures used to assess effectiveness of care in individual studies, facilitating the pooling and comparison of their data [34]. In the case of a lower effect score translating to a better clinical outcome, the effect ratio was inverted to reflect the appropriate change in outcome.…”
Section: Meta-analysis and Statistical Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interpreting effect estimates for pain intensity is challenging as this outcome can be assessed using different scales (eg, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), SF-36 bodily pain scale or other scales). To address this issue, we will follow specific guidelines to standardise this outcome into a standard metric 81–83. We chose the 10 cm pain intensity VAS (score range 0 to 10 cm; lower score represents less pain) as this is the pain intensity scale most commonly used in acute pain trials 84–86.…”
Section: Methods and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When assessing pain intensity data, to further optimise the interpretation of meta-analyses results, we will also calculate the proportion of patients who reported adequate pain control (no more than mild pain, as determined by a pain score <3/10 cm VAS) 88 89. By assuming a normal distribution of postoperative pain scores in both groups, differences in risk of reporting adequate pain control will be derived with its associated 95% CIs 81–83…”
Section: Methods and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation