Footprint of publication selection bias on meta‐analyses in medicine, environmental sciences, psychology, and economics
František Bartoš,Maximilian Maier,Eric‐Jan Wagenmakers,Franziska Nippold,Hristos Doucouliagos,John P. A. Ioannidis,Willem M. Otte,Martina Sladekova,Teshome K. Deresssa,Stephan B. Bruns,Daniele Fanelli,T. D. Stanley
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1703
2024-02-09
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.
multidisciplinary sciences,mathematical & computational biology