Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41635950›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2026

Bayesian workflow for bias-adjustment model in meta-analysis.

Juyoung Jung, Ariel M Aloe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Juyoung JungEducational Measurement and Statistics, https://ror.org/036jqmy94The University of Iowa, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6770-7253
Ariel M AloeEducational Measurement and Statistics, https://ror.org/036jqmy94The University of Iowa, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bayesian hierarchical models offer a principled framework for adjusting for study-level bias in meta-analysis, but their complexity and sensitivity to prior specifications necessitate a systematic framework for robust application. This study demonstrates the application of a Bayesian workflow to this challenge, comparing a standard random-effects model to a bias-adjustment model across a real-world dataset and a targeted simulation study. The workflow revealed a high sensitivity of results to the prior on bias probability, showing that while the simpler random-effects model had superior predictive accuracy as measured by the widely applicable information criterion, the bias-adjustment model successfully propagated uncertainty by producing wider, more conservative credible intervals. The simulation confirmed the model's ability to recover true parameters when priors were well-specified. These results establish the Bayesian workflow as a principled framework for diagnosing model sensitivities and ensuring the transparent application of complex bias-adjustment models in evidence synthesis.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicAlgorithmsBayes TheoremBiasComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalProbabilityReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignUncertaintyWorkflowBayesian meta-analysisBayesian workflowbias adjustmentmodel validationrisk of bias

Identifiers

PMID41635950
PMCPMC12873618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.