Footprint of Publication Selection Bias on Meta-Analyses in Medicine, Environmental Sciences, Psychology, and Economics

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Footprint of Publication Selection Bias on Meta-Analyses in Medicine, Environmental Sciences, Psychology, and Economics
Language: English
Authors: František Bartoš (ORCID 0000-0002-0018-5573), Maximilian Maier (ORCID 0000-0002-9873-6096), Eric-Jan Wagenmakers (ORCID 0000-0003-1596-1034), Franziska Nippold, Hristos Doucouliagos (ORCID 0000-0001-5269-3556), John P. A. Ioannidis (ORCID 0000-0003-3118-6859), Willem M. Otte (ORCID 0000-0003-1511-6834), Martina Sladekova (ORCID 0000-0001-5059-6576), Teshome K. Deresssa (ORCID 0000-0003-1351-1849), Stephan B. Bruns (ORCID 0000-0002-3028-9699), Daniele Fanelli (ORCID 0000-0003-1780-1958), T. D. Stanley (ORCID 0000-0002-3205-1983)
Source: Research Synthesis Methods. 2024 15(3):500-511.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Publications, Selection, Bias, Meta Analysis, Medicine, Environmental Education, Psychology, Economics, Effect Size, Probability
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1703
ISSN: 1759-2879
1759-2887
Abstract: Publication selection bias undermines the systematic accumulation of evidence. To assess the extent of this problem, we survey over 68,000 meta-analyses containing over 700,000 effect size estimates from medicine (67,386/597,699), environmental sciences (199/12,707), psychology (605/23,563), and economics (327/91,421). Our results indicate that meta-analyses in economics are the most severely contaminated by publication selection bias, closely followed by meta-analyses in environmental sciences and psychology, whereas meta-analyses in medicine are contaminated the least. After adjusting for publication selection bias, the median probability of the presence of an effect decreased from 99.9% to 29.7% in economics, from 98.9% to 55.7% in psychology, from 99.8% to 70.7% in environmental sciences, and from 38.0% to 29.7% in medicine. The median absolute effect sizes (in terms of standardized mean differences) decreased from d = 0.20 to d = 0.07 in economics, from d = 0.37 to d = 0.26 in psychology, from d = 0.62 to d = 0.43 in environmental sciences, and from d = 0.24 to d = 0.13 in medicine.
Abstractor: As Provided
Notes: https://osf.io/bgfzp
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1421864
Database: ERIC
Be the first to leave a comment!
You must be logged in first