ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Reformulating the meta-analytical random effects model of the standardized mean difference as a mixture model.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of Tai Chi on functional performance and fall-related psychological outcomes in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The classical meta-analytical random effects model (REM) has some weaknesses when applied to the standardized mean difference, g. Essentially, the variance of the studies involved is taken as the conditional variance, given a δ value, instead of the unconditional variance. As a consequence, the estimators of the variances involve a dependency between the g values and their variances that distorts the estimates. The classical REM is expressed as a linear model and the variance of g is obtained through a framework of components of variance. Although the weaknesses of the REM are negligible in practical terms in a wide range of realistic scenarios, all together, they make up an approximate, simplified version of the meta-analytical random effects model. We present an alternative formulation, as a mixture model, and provide formulas for the expected value, variance and skewness of the marginal distribution of g. A Monte Carlo simulation supports the accuracy of the formulas. Then, unbiased estimators of both the mean and the variance of the true effects are proposed, and assessed through Monte Carlo simulations. The advantages of the mixture model formulation over the "classical" formulation are discussed.
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.