ArticleJBI evidence synthesis2026
Evaluating the proper use of weighted mean difference in evidence synthesis: a meta-epidemiology study.
Article in JBI evidence synthesis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
introductionThe weighted mean difference (WMD) has long been used in evidence syntheses involving continuous outcomes. However, it is sometimes applied interchangeably with the mean difference (MD) despite their conceptual distinction: the WMD is intended solely for pooled estimates across studies, not for individual study results. Misuse of WMD can lead to ambiguity in reporting and interpretation, yet empirical evidence on their prevalence and patterns in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) remains limited.
methodsWe conducted a meta-epidemiological study of SRMAs reporting continuous outcomes, published in The BMJ during 2 periods: 2002-2007 and 2020-2025. Each article was evaluated to determine whether the WMD was reported, whether its use was appropriate, and the rationale for each assessment. Two authors independently performed the evaluations, and any disagreements were resolved through discussion.
resultsIn the earlier study period, misuse of the term WMD was widespread, with many SRMAs employing it interchangeably with the MD without clear justification. Over time, the frequency of such misuse decreased, coinciding with the broader adoption of reporting guidelines and increased methodological rigor. Nonetheless, inappropriate applications of WMD persist in more recent publications.
conclusionsPersistent inconsistencies in WMD use reveal gaps in methodological understanding and reporting practice. Ongoing efforts to refine guidance and promote evidence synthesis literacy are essential to improve the rigor and transparency of SRMAs.
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.