IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/2005972.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Meta-research matters: Meta-spin cycles, the blindness of bias, and rebuilding trust

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Bero

Abstract

Meta-research is research about research. Meta-research may not be as click-worthy as a meta-pug—a pug dog dressed up in a pug costume—but it is crucial to understanding research. A particularly valuable contribution of meta-research is to identify biases in a body of evidence. Bias can occur in the design, conduct, or publication of research and is a systematic deviation from the truth in results or inferences. The findings of meta-research can tell us which evidence to trust and what must be done to improve future research. We should be using meta-research to provide the evidence base for implementing systemic changes to improve research, not for discrediting it.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Bero, 2018. "Meta-research matters: Meta-spin cycles, the blindness of bias, and rebuilding trust," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-4, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:2005972
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005972
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005972
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005972&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005972?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily S Sena & H Bart van der Worp & Philip M W Bath & David W Howells & Malcolm R Macleod, 2010. "Publication Bias in Reports of Animal Stroke Studies Leads to Major Overstatement of Efficacy," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-8, March.
    2. Matthew J Page & Julian P T Higgins & Gemma Clayton & Jonathan A C Sterne & Asbjørn Hróbjartsson & Jelena Savović, 2016. "Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-26, July.
    3. Susan L Norris & Haley K Holmer & Lauren A Ogden & Brittany U Burda, 2011. "Conflict of Interest in Clinical Practice Guideline Development: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-6, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rahman Shiri & Ari Väänänen & Pauliina Mattila-Holappa & Krista Kauppi & Patrik Borg, 2022. "The Effect of Healthy Lifestyle Changes on Work Ability and Mental Health Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-11, October.
    2. Susan L Norris & Haley K Holmer & Lauren A Ogden & Brittany U Burda & Rongwei Fu, 2013. "Conflicts of Interest among Authors of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-1, October.
    3. Joanne Khabsa & Jennifer Petkovic & Alison Riddle & Lyubov Lytvyn & Olivia Magwood & Pearl Atwere & Pauline Campbell & Srinivasa V. Katikireddi & Bronwen Merner & Mona Nasser & Stephanie Chang & Aleja, 2022. "PROTOCOL: Conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in health and healthcare guideline development: a systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    4. Damien Wyssa & Martin R Tramèr & Nadia Elia, 2019. "Reporting of conflicts of interest and of sponsorship of guidelines in anaesthesiology. A cross-sectional study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-13, February.
    5. Nalinee Poolsup & Naeti Suksomboon & Putu Dian Marani Kurnianta & Kulchalee Deawjaroen, 2019. "Effects of curcumin on glycemic control and lipid profile in prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, April.
    6. Joseph Pozsgai-Alvarez & Iván Pastor Sanz, 2021. "Mapping the (anti-)corruption field: key topics and changing trends, 1968–2020," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 851-881, November.
    7. Amos Z. B. Flomo & Elissaios Papyrakis & Natascha Wagner, 2023. "Evaluating the economic effects of the Ebola virus disease in Liberia: A synthetic control approach," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(6), pages 1478-1504, August.
    8. Unruh, Lynn & Rice, Thomas & Rosenau, Pauline Vaillancourt & Barnes, Andrew J., 2016. "The 2013 cholesterol guideline controversy: Would better evidence prevent pharmaceuticalization?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(7), pages 797-808.
    9. Constance Holman & Sophie K Piper & Ulrike Grittner & Andreas Antonios Diamantaras & Jonathan Kimmelman & Bob Siegerink & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2016. "Where Have All the Rodents Gone? The Effects of Attrition in Experimental Research on Cancer and Stroke," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    10. Bernhard Voelkl & Lucile Vogt & Emily S Sena & Hanno Würbel, 2018. "Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    11. Jeffrey Sonis & Olivia M Chen, 2020. "Approval processes in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines sponsored by medical specialty societies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-9, February.
    12. Jenny T van der Steen & Cornelis A van den Bogert & Mirjam C van Soest-Poortvliet & Soulmaz Fazeli Farsani & René H J Otten & Gerben ter Riet & Lex M Bouter, 2018. "Determinants of selective reporting: A taxonomy based on content analysis of a random selection of the literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, February.
    13. Tanya Graham & Phil Alderson & Tim Stokes, 2015. "Managing Conflicts of Interest in the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Clinical Guidelines Programme: Qualitative Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-10, March.
    14. Brian P Walcott & Sameer A Sheth & Brian V Nahed & Jean-Valery Coumans, 2012. "Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-4, August.
    15. Susan L Norris & Haley K Holmer & Brittany U Burda & Lauren A Ogden & Rongwei Fu, 2012. "Conflict of Interest Policies for Organizations Producing a Large Number of Clinical Practice Guidelines," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-12, May.
    16. David Baker & Katie Lidster & Ana Sottomayor & Sandra Amor, 2014. "Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-6, January.
    17. Wang, Zhicheng & Bero, Lisa & Grundy, Quinn, 2021. "Understanding professional stakeholders’ active resistance to guideline implementation: The case of Canadian breast screening guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    18. Susanne Wieschowski & Diego S Silva & Daniel Strech, 2016. "Animal Study Registries: Results from a Stakeholder Analysis on Potential Strengths, Weaknesses, Facilitators, and Barriers," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-12, November.
    19. Konstantinos K Tsilidis & Orestis A Panagiotou & Emily S Sena & Eleni Aretouli & Evangelos Evangelou & David W Howells & Rustam Al-Shahi Salman & Malcolm R Macleod & John P A Ioannidis, 2013. "Evaluation of Excess Significance Bias in Animal Studies of Neurological Diseases," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-10, July.
    20. Jennifer A Hirst & Jeremy Howick & Jeffrey K Aronson & Nia Roberts & Rafael Perera & Constantinos Koshiaris & Carl Heneghan, 2014. "The Need for Randomization in Animal Trials: An Overview of Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:2005972. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.