scholarly journals Is psychotherapy effective? A re-analysis of treatments for depression

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (03) ◽  
pp. 268-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Munder ◽  
C. Flückiger ◽  
F. Leichsenring ◽  
A. A. Abbass ◽  
M. J. Hilsenroth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Natural History ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Wait List ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Data Set ◽  
A Value ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Depression

AbstractAimsThe aim of this study was to reanalyse the data from Cuijpers et al.'s (2018) meta-analysis, to examine Eysenck's claim that psychotherapy is not effective. Cuijpers et al., after correcting for bias, concluded that the effect of psychotherapy for depression was small (standardised mean difference, SMD, between 0.20 and 0.30), providing evidence that psychotherapy is not as effective as generally accepted.MethodsThe data for this study were the effect sizes included in Cuijpers et al. (2018). We removed outliers from the data set of effects, corrected for publication bias and segregated psychotherapy from other interventions. In our study, we considered wait-list (WL) controls as the most appropriate estimate of the natural history of depression without intervention.ResultsThe SMD for all interventions and for psychotherapy compared to WL controls was approximately 0.70, a value consistent with past estimates of the effectiveness of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy was also more effective than care-as-usual (SMD = 0.31) and other control groups (SMD = 0.43).ConclusionsThe re-analysis reveals that psychotherapy for adult patients diagnosed with depression is effective.

Thyroid function and the natural history of depression: findings from the Caerphilly Prospective Study (CaPS) and a meta-analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 70 (3) ◽  
pp. 484-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. D. Williams ◽  
R. Harris ◽  
C. M. Dayan ◽  
J. Evans ◽  
J Gallacher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Natural History ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Thyroid Function ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Depression

Natural history of adrenal incidentalomas with and without mild autonomous cortisol excess; a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasir Elhassan ◽  
Fares Alahdab ◽  
Alessandro Prete ◽  
Danae Delivanis ◽  
Aakanksha Khanna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Natural History ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adrenal Incidentalomas ◽  
History Of

Identification of and Correction for Publication Bias: Comment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Kvarven ◽  
Eirik Strømland ◽  
Magnus Johannesson
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
False Positive Rate ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Moderate Reduction ◽  
Positive Rate ◽  
Meta Analyses

Andrews & Kasy (2019) propose an approach for adjusting effect sizes in meta-analysis for publication bias. We use the Andrews-Kasy estimator to adjust the result of 15 meta-analyses and compare the adjusted results to 15 large-scale multiple labs replication studies estimating the same effects. The pre-registered replications provide precisely estimated effect sizes, which do not suffer from publication bias. The Andrews-Kasy approach leads to a moderate reduction of the inflated effect sizes in the meta-analyses. However, the approach still overestimates effect sizes by a factor of about two or more and has an estimated false positive rate of between 57% and 100%.

A Meta-Analysis of the Facial Feedback Literature: Effects of Facial Feedback on Emotional Experience Are Small and Variable

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Alvaro Coles ◽  
Jeff T. Larsen ◽  
Heather Lench
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Emotional Experience ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Detection Methods ◽  
Feedback Effects ◽  
Facial Feedback ◽  
Facial Movements ◽  
Facial Feedback Hypothesis ◽  
Variance Estimates

The facial feedback hypothesis suggests that an individual’s experience of emotion is influenced by feedback from their facial movements. To evaluate the cumulative evidence for this hypothesis, we conducted a meta-analysis on 286 effect sizes derived from 138 studies that manipulated facial feedback and collected emotion self-reports. Using random effects meta-regression with robust variance estimates, we found that the overall effect of facial feedback was significant, but small. Results also indicated that feedback effects are stronger in some circumstances than others. We examined 12 potential moderators, and three were associated with differences in effect sizes. 1. Type of emotional outcome: Facial feedback influenced emotional experience (e.g., reported amusement) and, to a greater degree, affective judgments of a stimulus (e.g., the objective funniness of a cartoon). Three publication bias detection methods did not reveal evidence of publication bias in studies examining the effects of facial feedback on emotional experience, but all three methods revealed evidence of publication bias in studies examining affective judgments. 2. Presence of emotional stimuli: Facial feedback effects on emotional experience were larger in the absence of emotionally evocative stimuli (e.g., cartoons). 3. Type of stimuli: When participants were presented with emotionally evocative stimuli, facial feedback effects were larger in the presence of some types of stimuli (e.g., emotional sentences) than others (e.g., pictures). The available evidence supports the facial feedback hypothesis’ central claim that facial feedback influences emotional experience, although these effects tend to be small and heterogeneous.

scholarly journals The Natural History of Facial Schwannomas: A Meta-analysis of Case Series

2018 ◽  
Vol 79 (S 01) ◽  
pp. S1-S188
Author(s):  
John Leonetti ◽  
Matthew Bartindale ◽  
Jeffrey Heiferman ◽  
Cara Joyce ◽  
Neelam Balasubramanian
Keyword(s):  
Natural History ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
History Of

scholarly journals Livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LA-MRSA) colonisation and infection among livestock workers and veterinarians: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. oemed-2020-106418
Author(s):  
Chen Chen ◽  
Felicia Wu
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Preventive Practices ◽  
Swine Workers ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
And Control

ObjectivesMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an increasing public health concern worldwide. The objective of this study was to calculate a summary odds ratio (OR) of livestock-associated MRSA colonisation and infection in humans, and to determine specific risk factors in livestock production contributing to MRSA colonisation.MethodsWe screened PubMed and Embase for studies published from 2005 to 2019 inclusive, reporting livestock-associated (LA)-MRSA colonisation and infection among livestock workers/veterinarians, their families, and community members not regularly exposed to livestock. The primary outcome of interest was the OR of LA-MRSA colonisation comparing exposed and control groups. Quality was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was conducted to calculate a pooled OR. The heterogeneity in the meta-analysis was assessed using the I² method, and publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots.ResultsA total of 3490 studies were identified by the search, with 37 studies including 53 matched exposed-control groups and 14 038 participants eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled OR for LA-MRSA among livestock workers and veterinarians is 9.80 (95% CI 6.89 to 13.95; p=0.000; I2=73.4), with no significant publication bias (Egger’s p=0.66). The OR for swine workers was highest at 15.41 (95% CI 9.24 to 25.69), followed by cattle workers (11.62, 95% CI 4.60 to 29.36), veterinarians (7.63, 95% CI 3.10 to 18.74), horse workers (7.45, 95% CI 2.39 to 23.25), livestock workers (5.86, 95% CI 1.14 to 30.16), poultry workers (5.70, 95% CI 1.70 19.11), and industrial slaughterhouse workers (4.69, 95% CI 1.10 to 20.0).ConclusionsLivestock workers, particularly swine farmers, are at significantly higher risk for LA-MRSA colonisation and subsequent infection. These results support the need for preventive practices to reduce LA-MRSA risk among those who handle and treat livestock.Trial registration numberCRD42019120403.

scholarly journals A meta-analytical answer to the crisis of confidence of Psychology

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 350-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Botella ◽  
Juan I. Durán
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Natural Unit ◽  
Valuable Contribution ◽  
Analytical Perspective ◽  
Object Of Study ◽  
Personal Interests

Meta-analysis is a firmly established methodology and an integral part of the process of generating knowledge across the empirical sciences. Meta-analysis has also focused on methodology and has become a dominant critic of methodological shortcomings. We highlight several problematic issues on how we research in psychology: excess of heterogeneity in the results and difficulties for replication, publication bias, suboptimal methodological quality, and questionable practices of the researchers. These and other problems led to a “crisis of confidence” in psychology. We discuss how the meta-analytical perspective and its procedures can help to overcome the crisis. A more cooperative perspective, instead of a competitive one, can shift to consider replication as a more valuable contribution. Knowledge cannot be based in isolated studies. Given the nature of the object of study of psychology the natural unit to generate knowledge must be the estimated distribution of the effect sizes, not the dichotomous decision on statistical significance in specific studies. Some suggestions are offered on how to redirect researchers' research and practices, so that their personal interests and those of science as such are better aligned.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document