Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41399660›Full record

ReviewBiochemia medica2026

Effect sizes for nonparametric tests.

Fernanda Fiel Peres

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biochemia medica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Is the Cat-Owner Relationship Related to Cat-Wildlife Conflicts?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  11. Functional status of women with and without potentially life-threatening maternal conditions after 6 months postpartum: A cohort study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

Fernanda Fiel PeresIndependent researcher, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effect size measures are important complements to P values, providing information about the magnitude and practical relevance of research findings. While widely discussed in the context of parametric tests, effect size estimation for nonparametric tests remains less explored. This article reviews standardized effect size measures applicable to four common nonparametric tests: Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon signed-rank, Kruskal-Wallis, and Friedman. Commonly suggested classifications for these effect sizes are also discussed. This article aims to support researchers in reporting and interpreting effect sizes more effectively in nonparametric contexts.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalSample SizeStatistics, NonparametricHumansbiostatisticseffect sizenonparametric statisticswriting in science

Identifiers

PMID41399660
PMCPMC12701665

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.