PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Sports Medicine· 2026Q1

Effect Size Calculation Procedures in Exercise Intervention Meta-Analyses: A Scoping Review

Simon Nolte, Theresa Siepe, Jennifer Murphy, Oliver Jan Quittmann et al.

Short summary

A scoping review of 101 exercise intervention meta-analyses found 50 unique effect size calculation method combinations, with most using change score-based standardized mean differences and often imputing pre-post correlations with fixed benchmarks, leading to potential discrepancies in meta-analysis outcomes.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • 101 exercise intervention meta-analyses using pre-post control designs were reviewed.
  • 50 unique combinations of effect size calculation methods were identified.
  • Most meta-analyses used change score-based standardized mean differences, often imputing pre-post correlations with fixed benchmarks.
  • Incomplete reporting and calculation issues were found in at least 27 articles.
  • Different calculation methods can lead to different meta-analysis outcomes.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses require the calculation of effect sizes for all included studies. The most common experimental design in exercise intervention studies is the pre-post control design. A number of different approaches exist for calculating effect sizes for this design, and it is currently unknown which calculation methods are actually used in the published exercise science literature and how this might impact results. METHODS: We extracted all meta-analyses (N = 101) published in six journals over a 2-year period where the primary studies used a pre-post control design. We recalculated randomly selected primary study effect sizes in each meta-analysis to determine the calculation methods used and compare them to the reported methods. An example case was used to illustrate the impact of using different calculation methods on meta-analysis outcomes. RESULTS: We identified a total of 50 unique combinations of calculation methods among the n = 91 meta-analyses for which we could determine the calculation procedure. Most researchers used change score-based standardized mean differences. These required the imputation of a pre-post correlation, for which most authors used fixed benchmarks instead of evidence-based or previously reported values. Reporting was often incomplete and we identified major issues in the calculation of at least 27 articles. We demonstrate that different calculation methods can yield different meta-analysis outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Effect size calculation procedures vary widely, which can affect meta-analysis outcomes and mislead their interpretation. A considerable number of published meta-analytical findings in exercise science may differ when other reasonable or corrected calculation methods are used. We provide recommendations on how to choose an appropriate effect size method for the pre-post control design. We encourage researchers to transparently report and justify the procedures used and perform sensitivity analyses when performing meta-analyses.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Sports Medicine, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Statistics, Probability and UncertaintyDecision Sciences