Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33867867›Full record

ArticleBioscience2021

The Hierarchy-of-Hypotheses Approach: A Synthesis Method for Enhancing Theory Development in Ecology and Evolution.

Tina Heger, Carlos A Aguilar-Trigueros, Isabelle Bartram, Raul Rennó Braga, Gregory P Dietl, Martin Enders, David J Gibson, Lorena Gómez-Aparicio, Pierre Gras, Kurt Jax and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

17 authors.

Tina HegerDepartment of Biodiversity Research and Systematic Botany, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5522-5632
Carlos A Aguilar-TriguerosBerlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany.
Isabelle BartramBerlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany.
Raul Rennó BragaUniversidade Federal do Paraná, Laboratório de Ecologia e Conservação, Curitiba, Brazil.
Gregory P DietlPaleontological Research Institution and the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Martin EndersBerlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany.
David J GibsonSchool of Biological Sciences, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois.
Lorena Gómez-AparicioInstituto de Recursos Naturales y Agrobiología de Sevilla, CSIC, LINCGlobal, Sevilla, Spain.
Pierre GrasBerlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany.
Kurt JaxDepartment of Restoration Ecology, Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany.
Sophie LokatisBerlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany.
Christopher J LortieDepartment of Biology, York University, York, Canada, as well as with the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California.
Anne-Christine MupepeleChair of Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, and the Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Frankfurt am Main, both in Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5671-0963
Stefan SchindlerEnvironment Agency Austria and University of Vienna's Division of Conservation Biology, Vegetation, and Landscape Ecology, Vienna, Austria, and his third affiliation is with Community Ecology and Conservation, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, Finally.
Jostein StarrfeltUniversity of Oslo's Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis and with the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, both in Oslo, Norway.
Alexis D SynodinosDepartment of Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Jonathan M JeschkeBerlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the current era of Big Data, existing synthesis tools such as formal meta-analyses are critical means to handle the deluge of information. However, there is a need for complementary tools that help to (a) organize evidence, (b) organize theory, and (c) closely connect evidence to theory. We present the hierarchy-of-hypotheses (HoH) approach to address these issues. In an HoH, hypotheses are conceptually and visually structured in a hierarchically nested way where the lower branches can be directly connected to empirical results. Used for organizing evidence, this tool allows researchers to conceptually connect empirical results derived through diverse approaches and to reveal under which circumstances hypotheses are applicable. Used for organizing theory, it allows researchers to uncover mechanistic components of hypotheses and previously neglected conceptual connections. In the present article, we offer guidance on how to build an HoH, provide examples from population and evolutionary biology and propose terminological clarifications.

Indexed as

hierarchy-of-hypotheses approachknowledge synthesislinking evidence to theorystructuring ideastheory development

Identifiers

PMID33867867
PMCPMC8038874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.