ReviewBehavior research methods2022
A meta-review of transparency and reproducibility-related reporting practices in published meta-analyses on clinical psychological interventions (2000-2020).
Review in Behavior research methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 6 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reporting and interpreting meta-analysis software choices: practical guidance for researchers, reviewers, and editors.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Guideline
- A worldwide itinerary of research ethics in science for a better social responsibility and justice: a bibliometric analysis and review.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of probiotic metabolites in the prevention of gestational weight gain and postpartum weight retention.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Exploring the efficacy of psychotherapies for depression: a multiverse meta-analysis.BMJ mental health · 2023Pooled it
- Changing patterns in reporting and sharing of review data in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of interventions: cross sectional meta-research study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Pooled it
- Prioritising measures and interventions to strengthen research reproducibility: a Delphi consultation study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Open Science Practices in Systematic Reviews From 2014 to 2024: A Cohort Study of 300 Systematic Reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Data sharing in acupuncture meta-analyses: Associations with journal policies and practical considerations.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Designing a Self-Guided Digital Intervention for Self-Management of Shoulder Pain in People Living With Spinal Cord Injury: Tutorial on Using a Person-Based Approach.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Evaluation of an online systematic review escape room for early career clinicians and doctoral students.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025Article
- Ten practices for successful study coding in research syntheses: Developing coding manuals and coding forms.Research synthesis methods · 2025Review
- Risk of bias and low reproducibility in meta-analytic evidence from fast-tracked publications during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Transparency in Cognitive Training Meta-analyses: A Meta-review.Neuropsychology review · 2025Review
- Reproducibility of meta-analytic results in systematic reviews of interventions: meta-research study.BMJ medicine · 2025Article
- Reproducibility and replicability in research: What 452 professors think in Universities across the USA and India.PloS one · 2025Article
- Transparency, quality, and statistical consistency of meta-analytic systematic reviews in clinical child and adolescent psychology (2022-2024): study protocol for a meta-review.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- On the value of meta-research for early career researchers: A commentary.JCPP advances · 2024Article
- Addressing the challenges of reconstructing systematic reviews datasets: a case study and a noisy label filter procedure.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Systematic reviewers' perspectives on sharing review data, analytic code, and other materials: A survey.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Meta-analysis is a powerful and important tool to synthesize the literature about a research topic. Like other kinds of research, meta-analyses must be reproducible to be compliant with the principles of the scientific method. Furthermore, reproducible meta-analyses can be easily updated with new data and reanalysed applying new and more refined analysis techniques. We attempted to empirically assess the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related reporting practices in published meta-analyses from clinical psychology by examining a random sample of 100 meta-analyses. Our purpose was to identify the key points that could be improved, with the aim of providing some recommendations for carrying out reproducible meta-analyses. We conducted a meta-review of meta-analyses of psychological interventions published between 2000 and 2020. We searched PubMed, PsycInfo and Web of Science databases. A structured coding form to assess transparency indicators was created based on previous studies and existing meta-analysis guidelines. We found major issues concerning: completely reproducible search procedures report, specification of the exact method to compute effect sizes, choice of weighting factors and estimators, lack of availability of the raw statistics used to compute the effect size and of interoperability of available data, and practically total absence of analysis script code sharing. Based on our findings, we conclude with recommendations intended to improve the transparency, openness, and reproducibility-related reporting practices of meta-analyses in clinical psychology and related areas.
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.