SCIENCE@home

Footprint of publication selection bias on meta‐analyses in medicine, environmental sciences, psychology, and economics

František Bartoš,M. Maier,E. Wagenmakers,Franziska Nippold,Hristos Doucouliagos,J. Ioannidis,W. Otte,Martina Sladekova,Teshome K. Deresssa,Stephan B. Bruns,D. Fanelli,T. Stanley

Published 2022 in Research Synthesis Methods

ABSTRACT

Publication selection bias undermines the systematic accumulation of evidence. To assess the extent of this problem, we survey over 68,000 meta‐analyses containing over 700,000 effect size estimates from medicine (67,386/597,699), environmental sciences (199/12,707), psychology (605/23,563), and economics (327/91,421). Our results indicate that meta‐analyses in economics are the most severely contaminated by publication selection bias, closely followed by meta‐analyses in environmental sciences and psychology, whereas meta‐analyses in medicine are contaminated the least. After adjusting for publication selection bias, the median probability of the presence of an effect decreased from 99.9% to 29.7% in economics, from 98.9% to 55.7% in psychology, from 99.8% to 70.7% in environmental sciences, and from 38.0% to 29.7% in medicine. The median absolute effect sizes (in terms of standardized mean differences) decreased from d = 0.20 to d = 0.07 in economics, from d = 0.37 to d = 0.26 in psychology, from d = 0.62 to d = 0.43 in environmental sciences, and from d = 0.24 to d = 0.13 in medicine.

PUBLICATION RECORD

CITATION MAP

EXTRACTION MAP

CLAIMS

  • No claims are published for this paper.

CONCEPTS

  • No concepts are published for this paper.

REFERENCES

Showing 1-45 of 45 references · Page 1 of 1

CITED BY

Showing 1-36 of 36 citing papers · Page 1 of 1