 |
 |
When trials use different outcome measures meta-analysis sometimes combine these into an effect size. This is a measure of the effect in variations from the mean rather than number of deaths, pain etc. The result is often presented as x% on treatment y did better than the average result on treatment z. I think that although this provides a statistically accurate measure of the likelihood of an effect it is of very little clinical use, because it is very hard to interpret what the result means. I was wondering if list members thought effect sizes shouldn't be used or if there was a case for them if the outcomes are relatively similar (e.g. two pain scales) or if there were better ways of interpreting the results? James Woodcock ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%