[R-meta] Binomial Effect Size Display?

Michael Dewey lists at dewey.myzen.co.uk
Thu Jul 20 10:27:57 CEST 2017

Dear Mark

There are some examples in the Cooper and Hedges handbook in a chapter 
by Rosentahl where clinical trials which were stopped early on ethical 
grounds because of the large size of effect are shown to have very small 
values of r. The BESD was, I imagine, a response to the use of r which 
gave a misleading result here. But, as Wolfgang said in another post, 
the BESD is hardly ever seen in the wild because nobody running a 
clinical study would usually use anything other than odds/risk ratios or 
mean differences.


On 15/07/2017 14:35, Mark White wrote:
> Hello all,
> Many meta-analyses will take their smaller-than-they-would-have-hoped
> summary effect size and make it look bigger by using Rosenthal and Rubin's
> (1982) binomial effect size display:
> http://www.cognadev.com/publications/BESD_Rosenthal_and_Rubin_1982.pdf. I
> have always thought this is a misleading metric. Someone asked a question 5
> years ago on CrossValidated about it, and I tried to answer it with a
> little simulation:
> https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/24067/is-the-binomial-effect-size-display-besd-a-misleading-representation-of-effect
> (this post provides a good, short summary of the original paper and the
> metric, if you are unfamiliar with it).
> I'm more of a simulate-and-see-if-it-works type of person—is there anyone
> who understands more of the math behind *why* this metric might be
> misleading?
> Best,
> Mark
> 	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-meta-analysis mailing list
> R-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-meta-analysis
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com


More information about the R-sig-meta-analysis mailing list