Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41760983›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2026

Correcting for publication bias in a meta-analysis with the p-uniform* method.

Robbie C M van Aert, Marcel A L M van Assen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Self-Determination Theory and Workplace Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Hostility and Cognitive Complexity: A Meta-analysis.Psychology in Russia : state of the art · 2025
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Do behavioral pharmacology findings predict clinical trial outcomes? A proof-of-concept in medication development for alcohol use disorder.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2021
    Article
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.

Robbie C M van AertDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, the Netherlands. R.C.M.vanAert@tilburguniversity.edu.
Marcel A L M van AssenDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, the Netherlands.

Funding

European Research Council 726361 (IMPROVE)Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) 406-13-050Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) VI.Veni.211G.012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Publication bias is a major threat to the validity of a meta-analysis, resulting in overestimated effect sizes. We propose a generalization and improvement of the publication bias method p-uniform called p-uniform*. P-uniform* improves upon p-uniform in three ways, as it (i) entails a more efficient estimator, (ii) eliminates the overestimation of effect size caused by between-study variance in true effect sizes, and (iii) enables estimating and testing for the presence of the between-study variance. We compared the statistical properties of p-uniform* with p-uniform, two implementations of the three-parameter selection model (3PSM) approach, and the random-effects model. Statistical properties of p-uniform* and 3PSM were comparable and generally outperformed p-uniform and the random-effects model if publication bias was present. We explain that p-uniform* uses a more parsimonious model than 3PSM and demonstrate that both methods estimate average effect size and between-study variance rather well with ten or more studies in the meta-analysis when publication bias is not extreme. We re-analyze the data of two published meta-analyses using p-uniform, p-uniform*, and 3PSM to illustrate the impact of publication bias on the results. We also offer recommendations for applied researchers, and we share R code in an R package as well as an easy-to-use web application for applying p-uniform*.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicModels, StatisticalPublication BiasData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansMeta-analysisPublication biasP-uniformSelection model approach

Identifiers

PMID41760983
PMCPMC12948804

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.