ArticleRoyal Society open science2022
The puzzling relationship between multi-laboratory replications and meta-analyses of the published literature.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of the development of turn taking in adult-child vocal interactions.Child development · 2022Pooled it
- Methods to Address Confounding and Other Biases in Meta-Analyses: Review and Recommendations.Annual review of public health · 2022Pooled it
- ManyBabies 3: A Multi-Lab Study of Infant Algebraic Rule Learning.Developmental science · 2026Article
- Article
- Evidence for Infant-directed Speech Preference Is Consistent Across Large-scale, Multi-site Replication and Meta-analysis.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2024Article
- Meta-analyses in psychology often overestimate evidence for and size of effects.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Toward Open and Reproducible Epidemiology.American journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
- Using selection models to assess sensitivity to publication bias: A tutorial and call for more routine use.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Article
- The puzzling relationship between multi-laboratory replications and meta-analyses of the published literature.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- How to report E-values for meta-analyses: Recommended improvements and additions to the new GRADE approach.Environment international · 2022Article
- Meta-regression methods to characterize evidence strength using meaningful-effect percentages conditional on study characteristics.Research synthesis methods · 2021Article
- Building theories of consistency and variability in children's language development: A large-scale data approach.Advances in child development and behavior · 2021Review
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
Abstract
What is the best way to estimate the size of important effects? Should we aggregate across disparate findings using statistical meta-analysis, or instead run large, multi-laboratory replications (MLR)? A recent paper by Kvarven, Strømland and Johannesson (Kvarven
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.