Back to Search
Start Over
Footprint of publication selection bias on meta-analyses in medicine, environmental sciences, psychology, and economics.
- Source :
- Research Synthesis Methods; May2024, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p500-511, 12p
- Publication Year :
- 2024
-
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 17592879
- Volume :
- 15
- Issue :
- 3
- Database :
- Complementary Index
- Journal :
- Research Synthesis Methods
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 178101945
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1703