Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27241618›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2016

On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: six practical recommendations.

Daniël Lakens, Joe Hilgard, Janneke Staaks

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. The impact of adult behavioural weight management interventions on mental health: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2021
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daniël LakensHuman Technology Interaction Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, IPO 1.33, PO Box 513, 5600MB, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Lakens@gmail.com.
Joe HilgardUniversity of Missouri, Missouri, USA.
Janneke StaaksUniversity of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeta-analyses play an important role in cumulative science by combining information across multiple studies and attempting to provide effect size estimates corrected for publication bias. Research on the reproducibility of meta-analyses reveals that errors are common, and the percentage of effect size calculations that cannot be reproduced is much higher than is desirable. Furthermore, the flexibility in inclusion criteria when performing a meta-analysis, combined with the many conflicting conclusions drawn by meta-analyses of the same set of studies performed by different researchers, has led some people to doubt whether meta-analyses can provide objective conclusions. DISCUSSION: The present article highlights the need to improve the reproducibility of meta-analyses to facilitate the identification of errors, allow researchers to examine the impact of subjective choices such as inclusion criteria, and update the meta-analysis after several years. Reproducibility can be improved by applying standardized reporting guidelines and sharing all meta-analytic data underlying the meta-analysis, including quotes from articles to specify how effect sizes were calculated. Pre-registration of the research protocol (which can be peer-reviewed using novel 'registered report' formats) can be used to distinguish a-priori analysis plans from data-driven choices, and reduce the amount of criticism after the results are known. The recommendations put forward in this article aim to improve the reproducibility of meta-analyses. In addition, they have the benefit of "future-proofing" meta-analyses by allowing the shared data to be re-analyzed as new theoretical viewpoints emerge or as novel statistical techniques are developed. Adoption of these practices will lead to increased credibility of meta-analytic conclusions, and facilitate cumulative scientific knowledge.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansPublication BiasReproducibility of ResultsMeta-analysisOpen scienceReporting guidelinesReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID27241618
PMCPMC4886411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.