ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Meta-analysis: a tool for constructing theories or evaluating interventions or simply proving everyday assumptions?
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After a brief consideration of the development of meta-analyses as a joint discussion of results from a research area across development stages 0, 1, 2, it is concluded that the present form 2.0 is unsuitable to serve as a basis for theory building. Further development of this tool into a meta-analysis 3.0 is necessary for this purpose which requires the validity of the independent variables in the primary studies, the reduction of the error variance of the dependent variables, a stability of the effects over the primary studies and a quantitative comparison between observed and predicted effects in the primary studies. In the current meta-analyses 2.0, a concrete single-case approach creates the impression that mainly everyday ideas are investigated, which one would like to generalize to a population of other conditions. Furthermore, the results of the existing meta-analyses are either homogeneous and very small or heterogeneous. Meta-analysis 2.0 searches for the instability of the measurements under a specific topic with methods of induction. The procedure of a meta-analysis 3.0 is described in general and carried out hypothetically and with an empirical example. It searches for the stability of quantitative reconstructions of data over different topics with the method of abduction. The conclusion can be summarized as that meta-analysis 3.0 is indispensable as a tool for theorizing, and theorizing presupposes meta-analysis 3.0. The link between this interdependence is abduction in contrast to induction as a research strategy.
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.