• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • UA Graduate and Undergraduate Research
    • UA Theses and Dissertations
    • Dissertations
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • UA Graduate and Undergraduate Research
    • UA Theses and Dissertations
    • Dissertations
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of UA Campus RepositoryCommunitiesTitleAuthorsIssue DateSubmit DateSubjectsPublisherJournalThis CollectionTitleAuthorsIssue DateSubmit DateSubjectsPublisherJournal

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    About

    AboutUA Faculty PublicationsUA DissertationsUA Master's ThesesUA Honors ThesesUA PressUA YearbooksUA CatalogsUA Libraries

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    How good are we? A meta-analytic study of effect sizes in medicine

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    azu_td_3132204_sip1_m.pdf
    Size:
    6.425Mb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    Caspi, Opher
    Issue Date
    2004
    Keywords
    Psychology, General.
    Advisor
    Sechrest, Lee
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Publisher
    The University of Arizona.
    Rights
    Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
    Abstract
    Background. Although Cohen's convention regarding small (∼0.2), medium (∼0.5), and large (∼0.8) effect sizes (ES) that originated in the socio-behavioral sciences approximately 40 years ago has been used heuristically in medicine as well, the extent to which it characterizes the range of ES for various medical therapies remains unknown. Objectives. (1) To calibrate the robustness of current interventions in medicine using different ES indices as the underlying metric, and (2) to examine whether the efficacy of therapeutic interventions in medicine have changed over the years. Methods. Three complementary studies have been conducted. Study I, which provides an indication of the range of ES in medicine currently, is a meta-meta analysis that summarizes 91 different meta-analyses of various treatments, from medicine to surgery to psychology. Study II used a pool of 250 different ES computed from 52 original clinical trials published over the last 25 years to examine time trends associated with ES. Study III used traditional and cumulative meta-analyses of 76 trials representing 30 different treatments for sepsis. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) was calculated and adjusted for different control death rates to assess systematically objectives (1) and (2). Results. Study I: The mean ES for continuous variables was d 0.50 (SD 0.35, 95%CI 0.32-0.69) and for dichotomous variables odds ratio 1.51 (SD 1.39, 95%CI 0.9-2.13; p > 0.05). Study II: A parsimonious theory-specified model accounted for 93.2% of the variance associated with ES estimates over the years. ES was statistically significant correlated with many design features but not with year of publication. Study III: Neither traditional meta-analysis nor cumulative meta-analysis found most treatment categories for sepsis to be effective. Whereas the pooled relative risk estimate for the entire cohort of almost 22,000 patients was statistically significant with very narrow confidence interval (RR 0.92; 95%CI 0.88-0.96; p = 0.00028), the NNT adjusted analysis had a wide range, including the potential for harm. Conclusion. Cohen's convention applies well to medicine. Most therapeutic interventions in this study had a small to moderate ES, indicating they have not changed dramatically over the years. These findings suggest that the ever-increasing biomedical knowledge does not result in ever-improving therapeutic efficacy.
    Type
    text
    Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
    Degree Name
    Ph.D.
    Degree Level
    doctoral
    Degree Program
    Graduate College
    Psychology
    Degree Grantor
    University of Arizona
    Collections
    Dissertations

    entitlement

     
    The University of Arizona Libraries | 1510 E. University Blvd. | Tucson, AZ 85721-0055
    Tel 520-621-6442 | repository@u.library.arizona.edu
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2017  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.