Stage 1 Registered Report: Anomalous perception in a Ganzfeld condition - A meta-analysis of more than 40 years investigation

This meta-analysis is an investigation into anomalous perception (i.e., conscious identification of information without any conventional sensorial means). The technique used for eliciting an effect is the ganzfeld condition (a form of sensory homogenization that eliminates distracting peripheral noise). The database consists of peer-reviewed studies published between January 1974 and June 2020 inclusive. The overall effect size will be estimated using a frequentist and a Bayesian random-effect model. Moderators analyses will be used to examine the influence of level of experience of participants, the type of task and the peer-review level. Publication bias will be estimated by using four different tests. Trend analysis will be conducted with a cumulative meta-analysis and a meta-regression model with Year of publication as covariate.

Download Full-text

Stage 1 Registered Report: Anomalous perception in a Ganzfeld condition - A meta-analysis of more than 40 years investigation

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.24868.3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 ◽

pp. 826 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Patrizio E. Tressoldi ◽

Lance Storm

Keyword(s):

Regression Model ◽

Trend Analysis ◽

Effect Size ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Random Effect ◽

Random Effect Model ◽

Effect Model ◽

Meta Regression ◽

Level Of Experience ◽

Stage 1

This meta-analysis is an investigation into anomalous perception (i.e., conscious identification of information without any conventional sensorial means). The technique used for eliciting an effect is the ganzfeld condition (a form of sensory homogenization that eliminates distracting peripheral noise). The database consists of peer-reviewed studies published between January 1974 and June 2020 inclusive. The overall effect size will be estimated using a frequentist and a Bayesian random-effect model. Moderators analyses will be used to examine the influence of level of experience of participants, the type of task and the peer-review level. Publication bias will be estimated by using four different tests. Trend analysis will be conducted with a cumulative meta-analysis and a meta-regression model with Year of publication as covariate.

Download Full-text

Stage 1 Registered Report: Stress regulation via being in nature and social support in adults - a meta-analysis

10.31234/osf.io/a4zmj ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Alessandro Sparacio ◽

Ivan Ropovik ◽

Gabriela M. Jiga-Boy ◽

Hans IJzerman

Keyword(s):

Social Support ◽

Publication Bias ◽

Effect Size ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Multilevel Regression ◽

Stress Regulation ◽

Analysis Workflow ◽

Affective Consequences ◽

Emotional Social Support ◽

Stage 1

This meta-analysis explored whether being in nature and emotional social support are effective in reducing levels of stress through a Registered Report. We retrieved all the relevant articles that investigated a connection between one of these two strategies and various components of stress (physiological, affective and cognitive) as well as affective consequences of stress. We followed a stringent analysis workflow (including permutation-based selection models and multilevel regression-based models) to provide publication bias-corrected estimates. We found [no evidence for the efficacy of either strategy/evidence for one of the two strategies/evidence for both strategies] with an estimated mean effect size of [xx/xx] and we recommend [recommendation will be provided if necessary].

Download Full-text

Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: An update of Mossbridge et al’s meta-analysis

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.14330.1 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 7 ◽

pp. 407

Author(s):

Michael Duggan ◽

Patrizio Tressoldi

Keyword(s):

Confidence Intervals ◽

Publication Bias ◽

Effect Size ◽

Statistical Estimation ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Random Model ◽

Effect Sizes ◽

Weighted Effect Size ◽

Credible Intervals ◽

Weighted Effect

Background: This is an update of the Mossbridge et al’s meta-analysis related to the physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli. The overall effect size observed was 0.21; 95% Confidence Intervals: 0.13 - 0.29 Methods: Eighteen new peer and non-peer reviewed studies completed from January 2008 to October 2017 were retrieved describing a total of 26 experiments and 34 associated effect sizes. Results: The overall weighted effect size, estimated with a frequentist multilevel random model, was: 0.29; 95% Confidence Intervals: 0.19-0.38; the overall weighted effect size, estimated with a multilevel Bayesian model, was: 0.29; 95% Credible Intervals: 0.18-0.39. Effect sizes of peer reviewed studies were slightly higher: 0.38; Confidence Intervals: 0.27-0.48 than non-peer reviewed articles: 0.22; Confidence Intervals: 0.05-0.39. The statistical estimation of the publication bias by using the Copas model suggest that the main findings are not contaminated by publication bias. Conclusions: In summary, with this update, the main findings reported in Mossbridge et al’s meta-analysis, are confirmed.

Download Full-text

Influence of Mindfulness and Relaxation on Treatment of Essential Hypertension: Meta-Analysis

Journal of Healthcare Engineering ◽

10.1155/2021/2272469 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 ◽

pp. 1-7

Author(s):

Fushun Zhang ◽

Yuanyuan Zhang ◽

Nan Jiang ◽

Qiao Zhai ◽

Juanjuan Hu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Blood Pressure ◽

Essential Hypertension ◽

Systolic Blood Pressure ◽

Publication Bias ◽

Effect Size ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Biomedical Literature ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Control Group ◽

Effect Model

Background. Some studies published previously have shown a strong correlation between hypertension and psychological nature including impulsion emotion or mindfulness and relaxation temperament, among which mindfulness and relaxation temperament might have a benign influence on blood pressure, ameliorating the hypertension. However, the conclusion was not confirmed. Objective. The meta-analysis was performed to investigate the influence of mindfulness and relaxation on essential hypertension interventions and confirm the effects. Methods. Systematic searches were conducted in common English and Chinese electronic databases (i.e., PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database) from 1980 to 2020. A meta-analysis including 5 studies was performed using Rev Man 5.4.1 software to estimate the influence of mindfulness and relaxation on blood pressure, ameliorating the hypertension. Publication bias and heterogeneity of samples were tested using a funnel plot. Studies were analyzed using either a random-effect model or a fixed-effect model. Results. All the 5 studies investigated the influence of mindfulness and relaxation on diastolic and systolic blood pressure, with total 205 participants in the control group and 204 in the intervention group. The random-effects model (REM) was used to calculate the pooled effect for mindfulness and relaxation on diastolic blood pressure (I2 = 0%, t2 = 0.000, P = 0.41 ). The random pooled effect size (MD) was 0.30 (95% CI = −0.81–1.42, P = 0.59 ). REM was used to calculate the pooled effect for mindfulness and relaxation on systolic blood pressure (I2 = 49%, t2 = 3.05, P = 0.10 ). The random pooled effect size (MD) was −1.05 (95% CI = −3.29–1.18, P = 0.36 ). The results of this meta-analysis were influenced by publication bias to some degree. Conclusion. All the results showed less influence of mindfulness and relaxation might act on diastolic or systolic blood pressure, when mindfulness and relaxation are used to intervene in treating CVD and hypertension.

Download Full-text

Foetal origins of depression? A systematic review and meta-analysis of low birth weight and later depression

Psychological Medicine ◽

10.1017/s0033291712000682 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 43 (1) ◽

pp. 1-12 ◽

Cited By ~ 48

Author(s):

W. Wojcik ◽

W. Lee ◽

I. Colman ◽

R. Hardy ◽

M. Hotopf

Keyword(s):

Psychological Distress ◽

Birth Weight ◽

Low Birth Weight ◽

Publication Bias ◽

Effect Size ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Severe Illness ◽

Qualitative Synthesis ◽

Normal Birth ◽

Trim And Fill

BackgroundThe foetal origins hypothesis suggests an association between low birth weight and later depression, yet evidence supporting this association has been inconsistent.MethodWe systematically reviewed evidence for an association between low birth weight and adult depression or psychological distress in the general population by meta-analysis. We searched EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO and ISI Web of Science for studies reporting observational data with low birth weight as the exposure and self- or clinician-rated depression or psychological distress measures as an outcome. Selective studies of exposures such as famine or outcomes such as severe illness only were excluded. Altogether,1454 studies were screened for relevance, 26 were included in the qualitative synthesis, 18 were included in the meta-analysis. A random effects meta-analysis method was used to obtain a pooled estimate of effect size.ResultsThe odds of depression or psychological distress was greater for those of low birth weight (<2500 g) compared to those of normal birth weight (>2500 g) or greater [odds ratio (OR) 1.15, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.00–1.32]. However, this association became non-significant after trim-and-fill correction for publication bias (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92–1.27). Using meta-regression, no differences in effect size were observed by gender, outcome measure of depression or psychological distress, or whether the effect size was adjusted for possible confounders.ConclusionsWe found evidence to support a weak association between low birth weight and later depression or psychological distress, which may be due to publication bias. It remains possible that the association may vary according to severity of symptoms or other factors.

Download Full-text

A meta-analysis of correlated behaviours with implications for behavioural syndromes: mean effect size, publication bias, phylogenetic effects and the role of mediator variables

Evolutionary Ecology ◽

10.1007/s10682-012-9589-8 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 26 (5) ◽

pp. 1213-1235 ◽

Cited By ~ 79

Author(s):

László Zsolt Garamszegi ◽

Gábor Markó ◽

Gábor Herczeg

Keyword(s):

Publication Bias ◽

Effect Size ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Behavioural Syndromes ◽

Phylogenetic Effects

Download Full-text

Predictive physiological anticipatory activity preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: An update of Mossbridge et al’s meta-analysis

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.14330.2 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 7 ◽

pp. 407 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Michael Duggan ◽

Patrizio Tressoldi

Keyword(s):

Confidence Intervals ◽

Publication Bias ◽

Effect Size ◽

Statistical Estimation ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Weighted Mean ◽

Weighted Effect Size ◽

Credible Intervals ◽

Weighted Effect ◽

Anticipatory Activity

Background: This is an update of the Mossbridge et al’s meta-analysis related to the physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli which overall effect size was 0.21; 95% Confidence Intervals: 0.13 - 0.29 Methods: Nineteen new peer and non-peer reviewed studies completed from January 2008 to June 2018 were retrieved describing a total of 27 experiments and 36 associated effect sizes. Results: The overall weighted effect size, estimated with a frequentist multilevel random model, was: 0.28; 95% Confidence Intervals: 0.18-0.38; the overall weighted effect size, estimated with a multilevel Bayesian model, was: 0.28; 95% Credible Intervals: 0.18-0.38. The weighted mean estimate of the effect size of peer reviewed studies was higher than that of non-peer reviewed studies, but with overlapped confidence intervals: Peer reviewed: 0.36; 95% Confidence Intervals: 0.26-0.47; Non-Peer reviewed: 0.22; 95% Confidence Intervals: 0.05-0.39. Similarly, the weighted mean estimate of the effect size of Preregistered studies was higher than that of Non-Preregistered studies: Preregistered: 0.31; 95% Confidence Intervals: 0.18-0.45; No-Preregistered: 0.24; 95% Confidence Intervals: 0.08-0.41. The statistical estimation of the publication bias by using the Copas selection model suggest that the main findings are not contaminated by publication bias. Conclusions: In summary, with this update, the main findings reported in Mossbridge et al’s meta-analysis, are confirmed.

Download Full-text

Stage 2 Registered Report: Anomalous perception in a Ganzfeld condition - A meta-analysis of more than 40 years investigation

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.51746.1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 ◽

pp. 234

Author(s):

Patrizio E. Tressoldi ◽

Lance Storm

Keyword(s):

Regression Model ◽

Effect Size ◽

Close Agreement ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Random Effect ◽

Random Effect Model ◽

Questionable Research Practices ◽

Effect Model ◽

Meta Regression ◽

Stage 1

This meta-analysis is an investigation into anomalous perception (i.e., conscious identification of information without any conventional sensorial means). The technique used for eliciting an effect is the ganzfeld condition (a form of sensory homogenization that eliminates distracting peripheral noise). The database consists of studies published between January 1974 and December 2020 inclusive. The overall effect size estimated both with a frequentist and a Bayesian random-effect model, were in close agreement yielding an effect size of .088 (.04-.13). This result passed four publication bias tests and seems not contaminated by questionable research practices. Trend analysis carried out with a cumulative meta-analysis and a meta-regression model with Year of publication as covariate, did not indicate sign of decline of this effect size. The moderators analyses show that selected participants outcomes were almost three-times those obtained by non-selected participants and that tasks that simulate telepathic communication show a two-fold effect size with respect to tasks requiring the participants to guess a target. The Stage 1 Registered Report can be accessed here: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.24868.3

Download Full-text

Detecting and correcting for publication bias in meta-analysis – A truncated normal distribution approach

Statistical Methods in Medical Research ◽

10.1177/0962280216684671 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 27 (9) ◽

pp. 2722-2741 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Qiaohao Zhu ◽

KC Carriere

Keyword(s):

Normal Distribution ◽

Publication Bias ◽

Random Effects ◽

Effect Size ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Truncated Normal Distribution ◽

Random Effects Models ◽

Funnel Plot ◽

Fixed And Random Effects ◽

Truncated Normal

Publication bias can significantly limit the validity of meta-analysis when trying to draw conclusion about a research question from independent studies. Most research on detection and correction for publication bias in meta-analysis focus mainly on funnel plot-based methodologies or selection models. In this paper, we formulate publication bias as a truncated distribution problem, and propose new parametric solutions. We develop methodologies of estimating the underlying overall effect size and the severity of publication bias. We distinguish the two major situations, in which publication bias may be induced by: (1) small effect size or (2) large p-value. We consider both fixed and random effects models, and derive estimators for the overall mean and the truncation proportion. These estimators will be obtained using maximum likelihood estimation and method of moments under fixed- and random-effects models, respectively. We carried out extensive simulation studies to evaluate the performance of our methodology, and to compare with the non-parametric Trim and Fill method based on funnel plot. We find that our methods based on truncated normal distribution perform consistently well, both in detecting and correcting publication bias under various situations.

Download Full-text