ArticleRoyal Society open science2022
The evolution of coordination: a phylogenetic meta-analysis and systematic review.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To solve many cooperative problems, humans must have evolved the ability to solve physical problems in their environment by coordinating their actions. There have been many studies conducted across multiple different species regarding coordinating abilities. These studies aim to provide data which will help illuminate the evolutionary origins of cooperative problem solving and coordination. However, it is impossible to make firm conclusions about the evolutionary origins of coordinating abilities without a thorough comparative analysis of the existing data. Furthermore, there may be certain aspects of the literature that make it very difficult to confidently address evolutionary and meta-analytic questions. This study aimed to rectify this by using meta-analysis, phylogenetic analysis and systematic review to analyse the data already obtained across multiple studies, and to assess the reliability of this data. We found that many studies did not provide the information necessary for meta-analysis, or were not comparable enough to other studies to be included in analyses, meaning meta-analyses were underpowered or could not be conducted due to low samples of both studies and different species. Overall, we found that many studies reported small positive effects across studies, but the standard errors of these effects frequently traversed zero.
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.