Volume 3, Issue 1, 2018   |   https://doi.org/10.18311/jhsr/2018/18664   |  Cited by 0 articles

Quantifying Effect Sizes in Randomised and Controlled Trials: A Review


  • University of Benin, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Benin City, Edo, 30001, Nigeria
  • University of Ilorin, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Ilorin, Kwara, Nigeria
  • Niger Delta University, Wilberforce Island, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, Bayelsa, Nigeria


Meta-analysis aggregates quantitative outcomes from multiple scientific studies to produce comparable effect sizes. The resultant integration of useful information leads to a statistical estimate with higher power and more reliable point estimate when compared to the measure derived from any individual study. Effect sizes are usually estimated using mean differences of the outcomes of treatment and control groups in experimental studies. Although different software exists for the calculations in meta-analysis, understanding how the calculations are done can be useful to many researchers, particularly where the values reported in the literature data is not applicable in the software available to the researcher. In this paper, search was conducted online primarily using Google and PubMed to retrieve relevant articles on the different methods of calculating the effect sizes and the associated confidence intervals, effect size correlation, p values and I2, and how to evaluate heterogeneity and publication bias are presented.


Size of effects, randomised trials, clinical trials, controlled trials, meta-analysis

Subject Discipline

Pharmacy and Pharmacology

Full Text:


Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res. 1976 Nov; 5:3–8. crossref

Kavale KA, Glass GV. Meta-analysis and the integration of research in special education. J Learn Disabil. 1981; 14:531–8. crossref PMid:7299284

Kassirer JP. Clinical trials and meta-analysis. What do they do for us? N Engl J Med. 1992 Jul; 327:273–4. crossref PMid:1614470

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002 Jun; 21:1539–58. crossref PMid:12111919

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003 Sep; 327:557–60. crossref PMid:12958120 PMCid:PMC192859

Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from: crossref

Garg AX, Hackam D, Tonelli M. Systematic review and metaanalysis: When one study is just not enough. Clin J Amer Soc Neurol. 2008 Jan; 3(1):253–60. crossref PMid:18178786

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009 Jul; 339:b2700. crossref PMid:19622552 PMCid:PMC2714672

Howard BE, Phillips J, Miller K, Tandon A, Mav D, Shah MR, Holmgren S, Pelch KE, Walker V, Rooney AA, Macleod M, Shah RR, Thayer K. SWIFT-review: A text-mining workbench for systematic review. Syst Rev. 2016 May; 5:87. crossref PMid:27216467 PMCid:PMC4877757

Huang X, Lin J, Demner-Fushman D. Evaluation of PICO as a knowledge representation for clinical questions. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006; 2006:359–63.

Harrison F. Getting started with meta-analysis. Methods Ecol Evol. 2011 Feb; 2:1–10. crossref

Landman JT, Dawes RW. Psychotherapy outcome: Smith and Glass’ conclusions stand up under scrutiny. Am Psychol. 1982; 37:504–6. crossref

Noble DWA, Lagisz M, O’dea RE, Nakagawa S. Nonindependence and sensitivity analyses in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses. Mol Ecol. 2017 Jan; 26(9):2410–5. crossref PMid:28133832

The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review. J Abnormal Social Psychol. 1962 Sep; 65:145–53. crossref PMid:13880271

Poston JM, Hanson WE. Meta-analysis of psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention. Psychol Assess. 2010 Jun; 22(2):203–12. crossref PMid:20528048

Ioannidis JP. Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006 Oct; 14(5):951–7. crossref PMid:19018930

Müller KF, Briel M, D’Amario A, Kleijnen J, Marusic A, Wager E, Antes G, von Elm E, Lang B, Motschall E, Gloy V, Schwarzer G, Altman D, Meerpohl JJ, Bassler D. Defining publication bias: Protocol for a systematic review of highly cited articles and proposal for a new framework. Syst Rev. 2013 May 21; 2:34. crossref PMid:23692820 PMCid:PMC3667005

Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004 May 26; 291(20):2457–65. crossref PMid:15161896

Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L, Tierney J. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18; (2):MR000011. crossref

Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials. 1998 Apr; 19(2):159– 66. crossref

Pittler MH, Abbot NC, Harkness EF, Ernst E. Location bias in controlled clinical trials of complementary/alternative therapies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 May; 53(5):485–9. crossref

Egger M, Davey G, Minde C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997; 315:629–34. crossref

Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011 Jul; 343:d4002. crossref PMid:21784880

Jackson D, Turner R. Power analysis for random-effects meta-analysis. Res Syn Meth. 2017 Apr; 1–13.


  • There are currently no refbacks.