ArticlePloS one2025
A two-stage random-effects estimator for meta-analyses of the value per statistical life.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We developed and examined the performance of a two-stage random-effects meta-analysis estimator for synthesizing published estimates of the value per statistical life (VSL). The meta-estimation approach accommodates unbalanced panels with one or multiple observations from each independent group of primary estimates, and distinguishes between sampling and non-sampling sources of error, both within and between groups. We used Monte Carlo simulation experiments to test the performance of the meta-estimator on constructed datasets. Simulation results indicate that, when applied to datasets of modest size, the approach performs best when the within-group non-sampling error variances are assumed to be homogeneous among groups. This allows for two levels of non-sampling errors while preserving degrees of freedom and therefore increasing statistical efficiency. Simulation results also show that the estimator compares favorably to several other commonly used meta-analysis estimators, including other two-stage estimators. As a demonstration, we applied the approach to a pre-existing meta-dataset including 113 VSL estimates assembled from 10 revealed preference and 9 stated preference studies conducted in the U.S. and published between 1999 and 2019.
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.