ArticleNature communications2025
Spurious precision in meta-analysis of observational research.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A New Effect Size for Meta-Analysis of Magnitude: lnM.Ecology letters · 2026Article
- Correcting for publication bias in a meta-analysis with the p-uniform* method.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- What can we learn from 1,000 meta-analyses across 10 different disciplines?Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Spurious precision in meta-analysis of observational research.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Reducing the biases of the conventional meta-analysis of correlations.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Meta-analysis assigns more weight to studies with smaller standard errors to maximize the precision of the overall estimate. In observational settings, however, standard errors are shaped by methodological decisions. These decisions can interact with publication bias and p-hacking, potentially leading to spuriously precise results reported by primary studies. Here we show that such spurious precision undermines standard meta-analytic techniques, including inverse-variance weighting and bias corrections based on the funnel plot. Through simulations and large-scale empirical applications, we find that selection models do not resolve the issue. In some cases, a simple unweighted mean of reported estimates outperforms widely used correction methods. We introduce MAIVE (Meta-Analysis Instrumental Variable Estimator), an approach that reduces bias by using sample size as an instrument for reported precision. MAIVE offers a simple and robust solution for improving the reliability of meta-analyses in the presence of spurious precision.
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.