ArticlePloS one2025
Meta-regression to explain shrinkage and heterogeneity in large-scale replication projects.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent large-scale replication projects (RPs) have estimated concerningly low reproducibility rates. Further, they reported substantial degrees of shrinkage of effect size, where the replication effect size was found to be, on average, much smaller than the original effect size. Within these RPs, the included original-replication study-pairs can vary with respect to aspects of study design, outcome measures, and descriptive features of both original and replication study population and study team. This often results in between-study-pair heterogeneity, i.e., variation in effect size differences across study-pairs that goes beyond expected statistical variation. When broader claims about the reproducibility of an entire field are based on such heterogeneous data, it becomes imperative to conduct a rigorous analysis of the amount and sources of shrinkage and heterogeneity within and between included study-pairs. Methodology from the meta-analysis literature provides an approach for quantifying the heterogeneity present in RPs with an additive or multiplicative parameter. Meta-regression methodology further allows for an investigation into the sources of shrinkage and heterogeneity. We propose the use of location-scale meta-regressions as a means to directly relate the identified characteristics with shrinkage (represented by the location) and heterogeneity (represented by the scale). This provides valuable insights into drivers and factors associated with high or low reproducibility rates and therefore contextualises results of RPs. The proposed methodology is illustrated using publicly available data from the Replication Project Psychology and the Replication Project Experimental Economics. All analysis scripts and data are available online.
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.