Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range

Abstract

BackgroundIn systematic reviews and meta-analysis, researchers often pool the results of the sample mean and standard deviation from a set of similar clinical trials. A number of the trials, however, reported the study using the median, the minimum and maximum values, and/or the first and third quartiles. Hence, in order to combine results, one may have to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation for such trials.MethodsIn this paper, we propose to improve the existing literature in several directions. First, we show that the sample standard deviation estimation in Hozo et al.’s method (BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13, 2005) has some serious limitations and is always less satisfactory in practice. Inspired by this, we propose a new estimation method by incorporating the sample size. Second, we systematically study the sample mean and standard deviation estimation problem under several other interesting settings where the interquartile range is also available for the trials.ResultsWe demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods through simulation studies for the three frequently encountered scenarios, respectively. For the first two scenarios, our method greatly improves existing methods and provides a nearly unbiased estimate of the true sample standard deviation for normal data and a slightly biased estimate for skewed data. For the third scenario, our method still performs very well for both normal data and skewed data. Furthermore, we compare the estimators of the sample mean and standard deviation under all three scenarios and present some suggestions on which scenario is preferred in real-world applications.ConclusionsIn this paper, we discuss different approximation methods in the estimation of the sample mean and standard deviation and propose some new estimation methods to improve the existing literature. We conclude our work with a summary table (an Excel spread sheet including all formulas) that serves as a comprehensive guidance for performing meta-analysis in different situations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-135) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Conservative fluid management or deresuscitation for patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome following the resuscitation phase of critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Results for outcomes for which meta-analysis was deemed inappropriate because of an insufficient number of studies or clinical or statistical heterogeneity were reported in narrative form, and observational studies were reported in tabular form (Appendix 1). Where necessary to standardise reporting of central tendency between studies, we converted standard error to standard deviation, and estimated mean and standard deviation from reported median and interquartile ranges using a standard approach [11]. For key outcomes, we assessed the quality of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [12].…”

Prognostic value of lymph node metastases detected during surgical exploration for pancreatic or periampullary cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…48 Attempts have been made to improve the estimations, but they remain to be validated. 49 Therefore the methods were used as described. Survival ranges needed to estimate mean survival times were deducted from KaplanMeier curves in 6 out of 7 studies of patients with para-aortic LNM.…”

Effect of PCSK9 Inhibitors on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Hypercholesterolemia: A Meta‐Analysis of 35 Randomized Controlled Trials

“…Standard deviations were calculated from the standard error or confidence interval (CI) if not reported. Mean baseline LDL‐C was estimated from median and interquartile range if not reported 15. Heterogeneity and inconsistency were assessed by using the Cochran Q test and I 2 statistic.…”