Standard analyses fail to show that US studies overestimate effect sizes in softer research.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Effect Sizes, Power, and Biases in Intelligence Research: A Meta-Meta-Analysis.Journal of Intelligence · 2020
   Article
2. Questionable research practices among italian research psychologists.PloS one · 2017
   Article
3. A surge of p-values between 0.041 and 0.049 in recent decades (but negative results are increasing rapidly too).PeerJ · 2015
   Article
4. Reply to Nuijten et al.: Reanalyses actually confirm that US studies overestimate effects in softer research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Reply to Nuijten et al.: Reanalyses actually confirm that US studies overestimate effects in softer research.2014
• Comment on
  US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research.2013

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as