scholarly journals Estimates of Between-Study Heterogeneity for 705 Meta-Analyses Reported in Psychological Bulletin From 1990-2013

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara van Erp ◽  
Josine Verhagen ◽  
Raoul P P P Grasman ◽  
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Prior Distribution ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Psychological Bulletin ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Study Heterogeneity ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Q Statistic

We present a data set containing 705 between-study heterogeneity estimates as reported in 61 articles published in Psychological Bulletin from 1990-2013. The data set also includes information about the number and type of effect sizes, the Q-statistic, and publication bias. The data set is stored in the Open Science Framework repository and can be used for several purposes: (1) to compare a specific heterogeneity estimate to the distribution of between-study heterogeneity estimates in psychology; (2) to construct an informed prior distribution for the between-study heterogeneity in psychology; (3) to obtain realistic population values for Monte Carlo simulations investigating the performance of meta-analytic methods.

scholarly journals Publication Bias in Meta-Analyses from Psychology and Medicine: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robbie Cornelis Maria van Aert ◽  
Jelte M. Wicherts ◽  
Marcel A. L. M. van Assen
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Psychological Bulletin ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Monte Carlo Simulation Study ◽  
True Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Psychology And Medicine

Publication bias is a substantial problem for the credibility of research in general and of meta-analyses in particular, as it yields overestimated effects and may suggest the existence of non-existing effects. Although there is consensus that publication bias exists, how strongly it affects different scientific literatures is currently less well-known. We examined evidence of publication bias in a large-scale data set of primary studies that were included in 83 meta-analyses published in Psychological Bulletin (representing meta-analyses from psychology) and 499 systematic reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR; representing meta-analyses from medicine). Publication bias was assessed on all homogeneous subsets (3.8% of all subsets of meta-analyses published in Psychological Bulletin) of primary studies included in meta-analyses, because publication bias methods do not have good statistical properties if the true effect size is heterogeneous. The Monte-Carlo simulation study revealed that the creation of homogeneous subsets resulted in challenging conditions for publication bias methods since the number of effect sizes in a subset was rather small (median number of effect sizes equaled 6). No evidence of bias was obtained using the publication bias tests. Overestimation was minimal but statistically significant, providing evidence of publication bias that appeared to be similar in both fields. These and other findings, in combination with the small percentages of statistically significant primary effect sizes (28.9% and 18.9% for subsets published in Psychological Bulletin and CDSR), led to the conclusion that evidence for publication bias in the studied homogeneous subsets is weak, but suggestive of mild publication bias in both psychology and medicine.

scholarly journals Published patterns of spin in biomedical literature: a protocol for a meta-research study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e043784
Author(s):  
Naichuan Su ◽  
Michiel van der Linden ◽  
Geert JMG van der Heijden ◽  
Stefan Listl ◽  
Stefan Schandelmaier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionSpin is defined as reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and create misleading conclusions by suggesting more favourable results. Such unjustifiable and misleading misrepresentation may negatively influence the development of further studies, clinical practice and healthcare policies. Spin manifests in various patterns in different sections of publications (titles, abstracts and main texts). The primary aim of this study is to identify reported spin patterns and assess the prevalence of spin in general, and the prevalence of spin patterns reported in biomedical literature based on previously published systematic reviews and literature reviews on spin.Methods and analysisPubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS will be searched to identify systematic or literature reviews on spin in biomedicine. To improve the comprehensiveness of the search, the snowballing method will be used to broaden the search. The data on spin-related outcomes and characteristics of the included studies will be extracted. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed with selective items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 checklist. A new classification scheme for spin patterns will be developed if the classifications of spin patterns identified in the included studies vary. The prevalence of spin and spin patterns will be pooled based on meta-analyses if the classification schemes for spin are comparable across included studies. Otherwise, the prevalence will be described qualitatively. The seriousness of spin patterns will be assessed based on a Delphi consensus study.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam Ethics Review Committee (2020250). The study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.RegistrationOpen Science Framework: osf.io/hzv6e

scholarly journals Interventions to Promote a Healthy Sexuality among School Adolescents: A Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1155
Author(s):  
Fernanda Loureiro ◽  
Margarida Ferreira ◽  
Paula Sarreira-de-Oliveira ◽  
Vanessa Antunes
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Adolescent Sexual Behavior ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Nurses Role ◽  
Healthy Sexuality ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses

Schools are particularly suitable contexts for the implementation of interventions focused on adolescent sexual behavior. Sexual education and promotion have a multidisciplinary nature. Nurses’ role and the spectrum of the carried-out interventions is not clear. We aimed to identify interventions that promote a healthy sexuality among school adolescents. Our review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews and was registered in the Open Science Framework. Published articles on sexuality in adolescents in school contexts were considered. The research limitations included primary studies; access in full text in English, Spanish, or Portuguese; and no data publication limitation. Research was carried out on the EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, and Web of Science platforms; gray literature and the bibliographies of selected articles were also searched. A total of 56 studies were included in the sample. The studies used a broad range of research methods, and 10 types of interventions were identified. Multi-interventional programs and socio-emotional interventions showed a greater impact on long-term behavioral changes, and continuity seemed to be a key factor. Long-term studies are needed to reach a consensus on the effectiveness of interventions. Nurses’ particular role on the multidisciplinary teams was found to be a gap in the research, and must be further explored.

scholarly journals Estimates of Between-Study Heterogeneity for 705 Meta-Analyses Reported in Psychological Bulletin From 1990–2013

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Van Erp ◽  
Josine Verhagen ◽  
Raoul P. P. P. Grasman ◽  
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Bulletin ◽  
Study Heterogeneity ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Where to prospectively register a systematic review

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Tanja Rombey
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Open Science ◽  
New Developments ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Study Type ◽  
Different Characteristics ◽  
Responsible Party

Abstract Background Prospective registration aims to reduce bias in the conduct and reporting of research and to increase transparency. In addition, prospective registration of systematic reviews is argued to help preventing unintended duplication, thereby reducing research waste. PROSPERO was launched in 2011 as the first prospective register for systematic reviews. While it has long been the only option to prospectively register systematic reviews, recently there have been new developments. Our aim was to identify and characterize current options to prospectively register a systematic review to assist review authors in choosing a suitable register. Methods To identify systematic review registers, we independently performed internet searches in January 2021 using keywords related to systematic reviews and prospective registration. “Registration” was defined as the process of entering information about a planned systematic review into a database before starting the systematic review process. We collected data on the characteristics of the identified registries and contacted the responsible party of each register for verification of the data related to their registry. Results Overall, we identified five options to prospectively register a systematic review: PROSPERO, the Registry of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Research Registry, and INPLASY, which are specific to systematic reviews, and the Open Science Framework Registries and protocols.io, which represent generic registers open to any study type. Detailed information on each register is presented in tables in the main text. Regarding the systematic-review-specific registries, authors have to trade-off between the costs of registration and the processing time of their registration record. All registers provide an option to search for systematic reviews already registered in the register. However, it is unclear how useful these search functions are. Conclusion Authors can prospectively register their systematic review in five registries, which come with different characteristics and features. The research community should discuss fair and sustainable financing models for registers that are not operated by for-profit organizations.

scholarly journals A Series of Meta-Analytic Tests of the Efficacy of Long-Term Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Franz Josef Woll ◽  
Felix D. Schönbrodt
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Psychiatric Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract. Recent meta-analyses come to conflicting conclusions about the efficacy of long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy (LTPP). Our first goal was to reproduce the most recent meta-analysis by Leichsenring, Abbass, Luyten, Hilsenroth, and Rabung (2013) who found evidence for the efficacy of LTPP in the treatment of complex mental disorders. Our replicated effect sizes were in general slightly smaller. Second, we conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing LTPP (lasting for at least 1 year and 40 sessions) to other forms of psychotherapy in the treatment of complex mental disorders. We focused on a transparent research process according to open science standards and applied a series of elaborated meta-analytic procedures to test and control for publication bias. Our updated meta-analysis comprising 191 effect sizes from 14 eligible studies revealed small, statistically significant effect sizes at post-treatment for the outcome domains psychiatric symptoms, target problems, social functioning, and overall effectiveness (Hedges’ g ranging between 0.24 and 0.35). The effect size for the domain personality functioning (0.24) was not significant ( p = .08). No signs for publication bias could be detected. In light of a heterogeneous study set and some methodological shortcomings in the primary studies, these results should be interpreted cautiously. In conclusion, LTPP might be superior to other forms of psychotherapy in the treatment of complex mental disorders. Notably, our effect sizes represent the additional gain of LTPP versus other forms of primarily long-term psychotherapy. In this case, large differences in effect sizes are not to be expected.

scholarly journals Antimicrobial Lock Therapy in Clinical Practice: A Scoping Review Protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 16
Author(s):  
Aniello Alfieri ◽  
Sveva Di Franco ◽  
Maria Beatrice Passavanti ◽  
Maria Caterina Pace ◽  
Agata Stanga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Lock Therapy ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses

Our objective is to review the scientific literature on the use of antimicrobial lock therapy (ALT). To achieve this result, our scoping review will address the following seven key questions: (1) Who are the patients who will benefit from this technique? (2) What are the techniques utilized? (3) What are the settings in which the technique is performed? (4) When the technique is performed? (5) Why the technique is performed? (6) How the technique is performed? (7) In how much amount, of such technique performed? This review considers all studies published in full and in peer-reviewed journals, with no restrictions on language, on the year of publication and age of the participants. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies will be included. This scoping review has been planned on a five-stage framework: 1. Identifying the review question; 2. identifying relevant studies; 3. study selection; 4. charting the data; 5. collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. It is conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Guidelines. The databases utilized will include MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Grey Literature. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/vphwm/.

scholarly journals A perceptual decision making EEG/fMRI data set

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasmin K. Georgie ◽  
Camillo Porcaro ◽  
Stephen D. Mayhew ◽  
Andrew P. Bagshaw ◽  
Dirk Ostwald
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Fmri Data ◽  
Imaging Data ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Perceptual Decision ◽  
Neuroimaging Data ◽  
Science Framework

AbstractWe present a neuroimaging data set comprising behavioural, electroencephalographic (EEG), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data that were acquired from human subjects performing a perceptual decision making task. EEG data were acquired both independently and simultaneously with fMRI data. Potential data usages include the validation of biocomputational accounts of human perceptual decision making or the empirical validation of simultaneous EEG/fMRI data processing algorithms. The dataset is available from the Open Science Framework and organized according to the Brain Imaging Data Structure standard.

scholarly journals bayesvl: Visually Learning the Graphical Structure of Bayesian Networks and Performing MCMC with 'Stan'

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
AISDL
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Markov Chain ◽  
Markov Chain Monte Carlo ◽  
Bayesian Networks ◽  
R Package ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Associated Functions ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Graphical Structure

Provides users with its associated functions for pedagogical purposes in visually learning Bayesian networks and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) computations. It enables users to: a) Create and examine the (starting) graphical structure of Bayesian networks; b) Create random Bayesian networks using a dataset with customized constraints; c) Generate 'Stan' code for structures of Bayesian networks for sampling the data and learning parameters; d) Plot the network graphs; e) Perform Markov chain Monte Carlo computations and produce graphs for posteriors checks. The package refers to one reference item, which describes the methods and algorithms: Vuong, Quan-Hoang and La, Viet-Phuong (2019) The 'bayesvl' R package. Open Science Framework (May 18).

scholarly journals Comorbidities of deformational plagiocephaly in infancy: a scoping review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001113
Author(s):  
Lia Charalambous ◽  
Mijna Hadders-Algra ◽  
Edna N. Yamasaki ◽  
Sofia Lampropoulou
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Narrative Form ◽  
Deformational Plagiocephaly ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionDeformational plagiocephaly (DP) is one of the most common cranial shape disorders in infancy. It is characterised by unilateral flattening of the skull due to head preference to one side. The literature suggests that DP is associated with comorbidities such as developmental delay, but the nature and prevalence of the comorbid impairments are still unclear and controversial. Therefore, our scoping review (ScR) aims to explore systematically the extent and nature of literature by identifying, mapping and categorising the most relevant comorbidities of DP in children up to the age of 2 years.Methods and analysisThis protocol is based on the framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley. A systematic search will be conducted to identify relevant full text studies from 1992 to 2021 using the databases of Cochrane, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, EMBASE, PubMed and University of Nicosia EBSCO. Two independent reviewers will screen abstracts and full articles in parallel, using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Specifically, this review will consider studies investigating DP and relevant comorbidities in children up to the age of 2 years of life without craniosynostosis, torticollis and any other diagnosed neurodevelopmental deficiency.The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for ScR Checklist will be considered for results’ analysis and reporting. The results will be described in a narrative form in relation to the research question and in the context of the overall study purpose.Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics approval is not required for this ScR since data will be retrieved from publicly available studies. Dissemination activities will include research findings’ submission for publication in a relevant peer-reviewed journal and presentation of the results at relevant conferences.RegistrationOur protocol was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/48am3/).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document