Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33194448›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

A case against default effect sizes in sport and exercise science.

Aaron Caldwell, Andrew D Vigotsky

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Ten guidelines for designing motor learning studies.Brazilian journal of motor behavior · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Aaron Caldwell *Thermal and Mountain Medicine, U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA, United States of America.
Andrew D Vigotsky *Departments of Biomedical Engineering and Statistics, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent discussions in the sport and exercise science community have focused on the appropriate use and reporting of effect sizes. Sport and exercise scientists often analyze repeated-measures data, from which mean differences are reported. To aid the interpretation of these data, standardized mean differences (SMD) are commonly reported as a description of effect size. In this manuscript, we hope to alleviate some confusion. First, we provide a philosophical framework for conceptualizing SMDs; that is, by dichotomizing them into two groups: magnitude-based and signal-to-noise SMDs. Second, we describe the statistical properties of SMDs and their implications. Finally, we provide high-level recommendations for how sport and exercise scientists can thoughtfully report raw effect sizes, SMDs, or other effect sizes for their own studies. This conceptual framework provides sport and exercise scientists with the background necessary to make and justify their choice of an SMD.

Indexed as

Appiled statisticsExercise scienceSport scienceStandardized effect sizeStandardized mean difference

Identifiers

PMID33194448
PMCPMC7646309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.