PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 7766789

Interpreting the standardized difference.

Abstract

An interpretation of the standardized difference is given which assists in judging the importance of such a difference. This is useful for designing two sample studies when information on mean difference or standard deviation is unavailable.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Tritchler. 1995. Interpreting the standardized difference.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7766789/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Repeated measures in clinical trials: simple strategies for analysis using summary measures.

The summary measures approach to analysing repeated measures is described. The circumstances under which it can be advantageous to use such measures are considered. Strategies for baseline adjustment where there are multiple baselines are examined, as is the choice of appropriate summary statistic. A compromise trend/mean measure, regression through the origin, is proposed as being useful under some circumstances. An analysis using this measure is illustrated with a suitable example.

Biometry↗

Prenatal detection of a high-risk group for intrauterine growth restriction based on sonographic fetal biometry.

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to evaluate the significance of sonographic fetal biometry in predicting low birth weight. METHOD: Five hundred and sixty-eight single-term pregnancies were analyzed. They were stratified into seven subgroups by birth weight deviation (BWD). Among the 568 pregnancies, 115 were revealed to be small-for-gestational-age (SGA) (birth weight less than mean -1.5 S. D.). When IUGR was suspected by routine sonographic fetal biometry, 'IUGR work-up' was carried out. The diagnostic performance of our screening method for the detection of SGA pregnancies in the general population was calculated. RESULT: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and odds ratio of our screening method for the detection of SGA pregnancies in the general population were 73.0, 96.6, 83.2, 98.0% and 131.0, respectively. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that sonographic biometry is useful for the prenatal detection of high-risk cases of fetal growth restriction.

Biometry↗

Growth pattern of twins of different chorionicity evaluated by sonographic biometry.

OBJECTIVE: To determine differences between growth patterns of monochorionic and dichorionic twins, and of concordant and discordant twins of both chorionicities. METHODS: We studied 70 cases of concordant twins (24 monochorionic, 46 dichorionic) and 45 cases of discordant twins (25 monochorionic, 20 dichorionic). In each case, growth was measured longitudinally by ultrasound biometry and the growth pattern was depicted. RESULTS: There were no differences in incremental growth between concordant monochorionic and dichorionic twins. The growth curve of concordant twins of both chorionicities was almost the same as that of a singleton until 34 weeks' gestation. However, in the discordant twins, the growth of the larger twin matched the growth curve of a singleton or concordant twin, but the growth of the smaller twin gradually decreased to the range of growth restriction. The growth curves for monochorionic discordant twins appeared to be representative of two groups, one of which had onset of discordancy before 24 weeks. CONCLUSION: It is clinically important to determine chorionicity early in twin pregnancies, to calculate the percentage of discordancy between the fetuses, and to examine longitudinal fetal growth curves in each chorionicity.

Biometry↗