Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31446547›Full record

ReviewNeuropsychology review2019

A Guide to Conducting a Meta-Analysis with Non-Independent Effect Sizes.

Mike W-L Cheung

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neuropsychology review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 193 papers, 138 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
193citing papers in PubMed, 138 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

193 citing papers in PubMed, 138 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. Assessing the causal effects of environmental tobacco smoke exposure: a meta-analytic Mendelian randomization study.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

133 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

1 author.

Mike W-L CheungDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore, Block AS4, Level 2, 9 Arts Link, Singapore, 117570, Singapore. mikewlcheung@nus.edu.sg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0113-0758

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventional meta-analytic procedures assume that effect sizes are independent. When effect sizes are not independent, conclusions based on these conventional procedures can be misleading or even wrong. Traditional approaches, such as averaging the effect sizes and selecting one effect size per study, are usually used to avoid the dependence of the effect sizes. These ad-hoc approaches, however, may lead to missed opportunities to utilize all available data to address the relevant research questions. Both multivariate meta-analysis and three-level meta-analysis have been proposed to handle non-independent effect sizes. This paper gives a brief introduction to these new techniques for applied researchers. The first objective is to highlight the benefits of using these methods to address non-independent effect sizes. The second objective is to illustrate how to apply these techniques with real data in R and Mplus. Researchers may modify the sample R and Mplus code to fit their data.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicHumansModels, StatisticalNeuropsychologyResearch DesignSample SizeMeta-analysisMultivariate meta-analysisNon-independent effect sizeThree-level meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID31446547
PMCPMC6892772

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.