Footprint of Publication Selection Bias on Meta-Analyses in Medicine, Environmental Sciences, Psychology, and Economics
In: Research Synthesis Methods, Jg. 15 (2024-05-01), Heft 3, S. 500-511
Online
academicJournal
Zugriff:
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.
Titel: |
Footprint of Publication Selection Bias on Meta-Analyses in Medicine, Environmental Sciences, Psychology, and Economics
|
---|---|
Autor/in / Beteiligte Person: | Bartoš, František ; Maier, Maximilian ; Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan ; Nippold, Franziska ; Doucouliagos, Hristos ; Ioannidis, John P. A. ; Otte, Willem M. ; Sladekova, Martina ; Deresssa, Teshome K. ; Bruns, Stephan B. ; Fanelli, Daniele ; Stanley, T. D. |
Link: | |
Zeitschrift: | Research Synthesis Methods, Jg. 15 (2024-05-01), Heft 3, S. 500-511 |
Veröffentlichung: | 2024 |
Medientyp: | academicJournal |
ISSN: | 1759-2879 (print) ; 1759-2887 (electronic) |
DOI: | 10.1002/jrsm.1703 |
Schlagwort: |
|
Sonstiges: |
|