ArticlePloS one2024
Suggested guidelines in reporting results from mediation analysis, standardized or unstandardized?
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Forming bootstrap confidence intervals and examining bootstrap distributions of standardized coefficients in structural equation modelling: A simplified workflow using the R package semboottools.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Relationship between self-compassion, assertiveness at work and job satisfaction among teachers.International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mediation analysis is commonly implemented in psychological, epidemiological, and social behavior studies to identify potential factors that mediate associations between exposures and physical or psychological outcomes. Various analytical tools are available to perform mediation analyses, among which Mplus is widely used due to its user-friendly interface. In practice, sumptuous results provided by Mplus, such as the estimated standardized and unstandardized effect sizes, can be difficult for researchers to choose to match their studies. Through a comprehensive review and utilizing findings from a proven study, we proposed guidelines and recommendations to help users select between standardized or unstandardized results based on data attributes and users' hypotheses. We also provided guidelines to choose from several types of standardized values based on the types of variables, including exposures, mediators, and outcomes.
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.