ArticleEcology and evolution2022
How much does the typical ecological meta-analysis overestimate the true mean effect size?
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2022. 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Environmental Risk Factors, Protective Factors, and Biomarkers for Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Umbrella Review of the Evidence.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2023Pooled it
- Exaggerated effects in ecology.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- Synthesising results of meta-analyses to inform policy: a comparison of fast-track methods.Environmental evidence · 2023Article
- How much does the typical ecological meta-analysis overestimate the true mean effect size?Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many primary research studies in ecology are underpowered, providing very imprecise estimates of effect size. Meta-analyses partially mitigate this imprecision by combining data from different studies. But meta-analytic estimates of mean effect size may still remain imprecise, particularly if the meta-analysis includes a small number of studies. Imprecise, large-magnitude estimates of mean effect size from small meta-analyses likely would shrink if additional studies were conducted (regression towards the mean). Here, I propose a way to estimate and correct this regression to the mean, using meta-meta-analysis (meta-analysis of meta-analyses). Hierarchical random effects meta-meta-analysis shrinks estimated mean effect sizes from different meta-analyses towards the grand mean, bringing those estimated means closer on average to their unknown true values. The intuition is that, if a meta-analysis reports a mean effect size much larger in magnitude than that reported by other meta-analyses, that large mean effect size likely is an overestimate. This intuition holds even if different meta-analyses of different topics have different true mean effect sizes. Drawing on a compilation of data from hundreds of ecological meta-analyses, I find that the typical (median) ecological meta-analysis overestimates the absolute magnitude of the true mean effect size by ~10%. Some small ecological meta-analyses overestimate the magnitude of the true mean effect size by >50%. Meta-meta-analysis is a promising tool for improving the accuracy of meta-analytic estimates of mean effect size, particularly estimates based on just a few studies.
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.