SynthesisResearch synthesis methods2021
Using Monte Carlo experiments to select meta-analytic estimators.
Synthesis in Research synthesis methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of cardiovascular magnetic resonance-derived right ventricular ejection fraction on adverse outcomes: A robust Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2024Pooled it
- Assessing the Evidential Value of Mental Fatigue and Exercise Research.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Pooled it
- Robust Bayesian meta-analysis: Model-averaging across complementary publication bias adjustment methods.Research synthesis methods · 2023Pooled it
- Using Monte Carlo experiments to select meta-analytic estimators.Research synthesis methods · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluating methods for testing publication bias in meta-analyses with confounding covariates: A simulation study.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Robust Bayesian multilevel meta-analysis: Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of dependent effect sizes.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Correcting for publication bias in a meta-analysis with the p-uniform* method.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- What can we learn from 1,000 meta-analyses across 10 different disciplines?Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Robust Bayesian Model Averaging Meta-Analysis of Menstrual Disorders in COVID-19 Survivors: A Methodological Meta-Analysis Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Validating the accuracy of the Hendrich II Fall Risk Model for hospitalized patients using the ROC curve analysis.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Sensitivity analysis for the interactive effects of internal bias and publication bias in meta-analyses.Research synthesis methods · 2024Article
- Meta-analyses in psychology often overestimate evidence for and size of effects.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to show how Monte Carlo analysis of meta-analytic estimators can be used to select estimators for specific research situations. Our analysis conducts 1620 individual experiments, where each experiment is defined by a unique combination of sample size, effect size, effect size heterogeneity, publication selection mechanism, and other research characteristics. We compare 11 estimators commonly used in medicine, psychology, and the social sciences. These are evaluated on the basis of bias, mean squared error (MSE), and coverage rates. For our experimental design, we reproduce simulation environments from four recent studies. We demonstrate that relative estimator performance differs across performance measures. Estimator performance is a complex interaction of performance indicator and aspects of the application. An estimator that may be especially good with respect to MSE may perform relatively poorly with respect to coverage rates. We also show that the size of the meta-analyst's sample and effect heterogeneity are important determinants of relative estimator performance. We use these results to demonstrate how these observable characteristics can guide the meta-analyst to choose the most appropriate estimator for their research circumstances.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.