Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:22:08.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Every effect size has its place: a commentary on the avoidance of pre–post effect sizes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2017

M. Kösters
M. Kösters*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Germany
*
Address for correspondence: M. Kösters, Department of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Germany. (Email: Markus.Koesters@uni-ulm.de)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

Meta-analysespre-post effect sizestrial design
Type
Commentary to Special Article
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 369 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barbui, C, Bighelli, I (2013). A new approach to psychiatric drug approval in Europe. PLoS Medicine 10, e1001530.Google Scholar
Basoglu, M, Marks, I, Livanou, M, Swinson, R (1997). Double-blindness procedures, rater blindness, and ratings of outcome. Observations from a controlled trial. Archives of General Psychiatry 54, 744–748.Google Scholar
Cuijpers, P, Weitz, E, Cristea, IA, Twisk, J (2016). Pre-post effect sizes should be avoided in meta-analyses. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 1–5.Google Scholar
Girlanda, F, Fiedler, I, Becker, T, Barbui, C, Koesters, M (2017). The evidence-practice gap in specialist mental healthcare. Systematic review and meta-analysis of guideline implementation studies. British Journal of Psychiatry 210, 24–30.Google Scholar
Koslowski, N, Klein, K, Arnold, K, Kösters, M, Schützwohl, M, Salize, HJ, Puschner, B (2016). Effectiveness of interventions for adults with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities and mental health problems. Systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry 209, 469–474.Google Scholar
Moncrieff, J, Wessely, S, Hardy, R (1998). Meta-analysis of trials comparing antidepressants with active placebos. British Journal of Psychiatry: the Journal of Mental Science 172, 227–231; discussion 232-4.Google Scholar
Morris, SB, DeShon, RP (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods 7, 105–125.Google Scholar
Sutton, AJ, Higgins, JPT (2008). Recent developments in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 27, 625–650.Google Scholar
van der Lem, R, van der Wee, NJA, van Veen, T, Zitman, FG (2012). Efficacy versus effectiveness: a direct comparison of the outcome of treatment for mild to moderate depression in randomized controlled trials and daily practice. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 81, 226–234.Google Scholar