Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27694466›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science2016

Conducting Meta-Analyses Based on p Values: Reservations and Recommendations for Applying p-Uniform and p-Curve.

Robbie C M van Aert, Jelte M Wicherts, Marcel A L M van Assen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 30 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 30 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 30 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. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Robbie C M van AertDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University R.C.M.vanAert@tilburguniversity.edu.
Jelte M WichertsDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University.
Marcel A L M van AssenDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Utrecht University.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Because of overwhelming evidence of publication bias in psychology, techniques to correct meta-analytic estimates for such bias are greatly needed. The methodology on which the p-uniform and p-curve methods are based has great promise for providing accurate meta-analytic estimates in the presence of publication bias. However, in this article, we show that in some situations, p-curve behaves erratically, whereas p-uniform may yield implausible estimates of negative effect size. Moreover, we show that (and explain why) p-curve and p-uniform result in overestimation of effect size under moderate-to-large heterogeneity and may yield unpredictable bias when researchers employ p-hacking. We offer hands-on recommendations on applying and interpreting results of meta-analyses in general and p-uniform and p-curve in particular. Both methods as well as traditional methods are applied to a meta-analysis on the effect of weight on judgments of importance. We offer guidance for applying p-uniform or p-curve using R and a user-friendly web application for applying p-uniform.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalMeta-Analysis as TopicModels, StatisticalHumansInternetPsychologyPublication BiasSoftwareheterogeneitymeta-analysisp-curvep-hackingp-uniform

Identifiers

PMID27694466
PMCPMC5117126

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.