Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate results
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, ISSN: 0895-4356, Vol: 59, Issue: 1, Page: 7-10
2006
- 1,407Citations
- 276Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations1,407
- Citation Indexes1,164
- 1,164
- CrossRef654
- Policy Citations243
- Policy Citation243
- Captures276
- Readers276
- 276
Article Description
Many reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) fail to provide standard deviations (SDs) of their continuous outcome measures. Some meta-analysts substitute them by those reported in other studies, either from another meta-analysis or from other studies in the same meta-analysis. But the validity of such practices has never been empirically examined.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435605003227; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.06.006; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=29144451581&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16360555; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0895435605003227
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know