The Standard Error/Standard Deviation Mix-Up: Potential Impacts on Meta-Analyses in Sports Medicine.

Background: A 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]. Objectives: The first aim of this study was to assess the impact...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Sports Medicine Vol. 54; no. 6; pp. 1723 - 1733
Autor principal: Sandercock, Gavin
Formato: equations & formulas research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Springer Nature Jun2024
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=178678366&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 178678366
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        01121642
        C5H
      jtl: Sports Medicine
      issn: 01121642
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jun2024
      vid: 54
      iid: 6
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        178678366
        174999980
        178678366
        178678366
        10.1007/s40279-023-01989-9
        178678366
      ppf: 1723
      ppct: 10
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: The Standard Error/Standard Deviation Mix-Up: Potential Impacts on Meta-Analyses in Sports Medicine.
      aug:
        au: Sandercock, Gavin
        affil: https://ror.org/02nkf1q06 University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, CO43SQ, Colchester, UK
      sug:
        subj:
          Sports Medicine
          Measurement Error Standards
          Statistics, Types
          Human
          Male
          Female
          Adult
          Descriptive Statistics
          Soccer
          Running
          Confidence Intervals
          Analysis of Variance
          Inferential Statistics
          Regression
          Adult: 19-44 years
          Male
          Female
      ab: Background: A 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]. Objectives: The 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. Methods: We 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. Results: We 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. Conclusions: We 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.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        equations & formulas
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N