ArticleSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
The Standard Error/Standard Deviation Mix-Up: Potential Impacts on Meta-Analyses in Sports Medicine.
Article in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reporting the standard error of the mean: a critical analysis of three journals in manual medicine.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2025Article
- Protective effect ofBiomedical reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA 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].
objectivesThe 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsWe 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.
conclusionsWe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.