The phrase "a standardised mean difference" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in statistical contexts, particularly when discussing the effect size between two groups in research studies.
Example: "The study reported a standardised mean difference of 0.5, indicating a moderate effect size between the treatment and control groups."
Alternatives: "a standardized effect size" or "a normalized mean difference".
The pooled effect size was calculated as a standardised mean difference (SMD) because different outcome measures were used.
All data were continuous and a difference in means was used except for one analysis; for depression a standardised mean difference was used to account for the different outcome measurements used in the five studies.
When the same outcome was measured in different ways, the data were pooled using a standardised mean difference (SMD) statistic.
The pooled effect on fatigue, calculated as a standardised mean difference (SMD) using a random-effects model, was –1.69 (95% CI –2.99 to –0.39).
Overall, electrical stimulation increased strength by a standardised mean difference (SMD) of 0.47 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.68) and this effect was maintained beyond the intervention period (SMD 0.33, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.60).
Interpreting a standardised mean difference clinically may be challenging.
DPICS scores were combined using a random effects model and the combined data (see Figure 4) show a significant standardised mean difference favouring the intervention group of SMD -0.44 (95% CI: -0.66, -0.23).
Standardised mean differences for 307 studies were small and less variable (I2 = 33.5) with a pooled standardised mean difference of 0.037 (95 % CI 0.031 to 0.042).
For continuous outcome data, we used random-effects models to calculate a pooled standardised mean difference and 95% CI.
25 Effect sizes were aligned across studies so that a negative standardised mean difference indicated more emotional distress (depression or anxiety) in the subsequently not pregnant group.
The results were combined using a random effects model, and the combined results (see Figures 2 and 3) show a significant standardised mean difference favouring the intervention group of -0.67 (95% CI: -0.91, -0.42).
