Footprint of publication selection bias on meta-analyses in medicine, environmental sciences, psychology, and economics
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2022
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866916119936237568 |
|---|---|
| author | 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. |
| author_facet | 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. |
| contents | 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. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2208_12334 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Footprint of publication selection bias on meta-analyses in medicine, environmental sciences, psychology, and economics 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. Applications 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. |
| title | Footprint of publication selection bias on meta-analyses in medicine, environmental sciences, psychology, and economics |
| topic | Applications |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.12334 |