Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36359616›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2022

How to Evaluate Theory-Based Hypotheses in Meta-Analysis Using an AIC-Type Criterion.

Rebecca M Kuiper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Rebecca M KuiperDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University, Padualaan 14, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0267-5197

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meta-analysis techniques allow researchers to aggregate effect sizes-like standardized mean difference(s), correlation(s), or odds ratio(s)-of different studies. This leads to overall effect-size estimates and their confidence intervals. Additionally, researchers can aim for theory development or theory evaluation. That is, researchers may not only be interested in these overall estimates but also in a specific ordering or size of them, which then reflects a theory. Researchers may have expectations regarding the ordering of standardized mean differences or about the (ranges of) sizes of an odds ratio or Hedges'

Indexed as

confirmatory researchinequality-constraintsinformation theoretic criteriainformative hypothesismeta-analysismodel selectionmultiple studiesorder-restricted hypothesistheory-based hypothesis

Identifiers

PMID36359616
PMCPMC9689568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.