Abstract Introduction Magnitudes of change in endothelial function research can be articulated using effect size statistics. Effect sizes are commonly used in reference to Cohen’s seminal guidelines of small ( d = 0.2), medium ( d = 0.5), and large ( d = 0.8). Quantitative analyses of effect size distributions across various research disciplines have revealed values differing from Cohen’s original recommendations. Here we examine effect size distributions in human endothelial function research, and the magnitude of small, medium, and large effects for macro and microvascular endothelial function. Methods Effect sizes reported as standardized mean differences were extracted from meta research available for endothelial function. A frequency distribution was constructed to sort effect sizes. The 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles were used to derive small, medium, and large effects. Group sample sizes and publication year from primary studies were also extracted to observe any potential trends, related to these factors, in effect size reporting in endothelial function research. Results Seven hundred fifty-two effect sizes were extracted from eligible meta-analyses. We determined small ( d = 0.28), medium ( d = 0.69), and large ( d = 1.21) effects for endothelial function that corresponded to the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile of the data distribution. Conclusion Our data indicate that direct application of Cohen’s guidelines would underestimate the magnitude of effects in human endothelial function research. This investigation facilitates future a priori power analyses, provides a practical guiding benchmark for the contextualization of an effect when no other information is available, and further encourages the reporting of effect sizes in endothelial function research.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 19 citations exist upstream.