IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/gv25c_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effect of Publication Bias on the Assessment of Heterogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • Augusteijn, Hilde Elisabeth Maria

    (Tilburg University)

  • van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria
  • van Assen, Marcel A. L. M.

Abstract

One of the main goals of meta-analysis is to test and estimate the heterogeneity of effect size. We examined the effect of publication bias on the Q-test and assessments of heterogeneity, as a function of true heterogeneity, publication bias, true effect size, number of studies, and variation of sample sizes. The expected values of heterogeneity measures H2 and I2 were analytically derived, and the power and the type I error rate of the Q-test were examined in a Monte-Carlo simulation study. Our results show that the effect of publication bias on the Q-test and assessment of heterogeneity is large, complex, and non-linear. Publication bias can both dramatically decrease and increase heterogeneity. Extreme homogeneity can occur even when the population heterogeneity is large. Particularly if the number of studies is large and population effect size is small, publication bias can cause both extreme type I error rates and power of the Q-test close to 0 or 1. We therefore conclude that the Q-test of homogeneity and heterogeneity measures H2 and I2 are generally not valid in assessing and testing heterogeneity when publication bias is present, especially when the true effect size is small and the number of studies is large. We introduce a web application, Q-sense, which can be used to assess the sensitivity of the Q-test to publication bias, and we apply it to two published meta-analysis. Meta-analytic methods should be enhanced in order to be able to deal with publication bias in their assessment and tests of heterogeneity.

Suggested Citation

  • Augusteijn, Hilde Elisabeth Maria & van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2017. "The Effect of Publication Bias on the Assessment of Heterogeneity," OSF Preprints gv25c_v1, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:gv25c_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/gv25c_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/594251f96c613b022aa0d041/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/gv25c_v1?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. Michal Kicinski, 2013. "Publication Bias in Recent Meta-Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-1, November.
    2. Kristian Thorlund & Georgina Imberger & Bradley C Johnston & Michael Walsh & Tahany Awad & Lehana Thabane & Christian Gluud & P J Devereaux & Jørn Wetterslev, 2012. "Evolution of Heterogeneity (I2) Estimates and Their 95% Confidence Intervals in Large Meta-Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-8, July.
    3. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    4. Wicherts, Jelte M. & Veldkamp, Coosje Lisabet Sterre & Augusteijn, Hilde & Bakker, Marjan & van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2016. "Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies A checklist to avoid p-hacking," OSF Preprints umq8d, Center for Open Science.
    5. Jaime L. Peters & Alex J. Sutton & David R. Jones & Keith R. Abrams & Lesley Rushton & Santiago G. Moreno, 2010. "Assessing publication bias in meta‐analyses in the presence of between‐study heterogeneity," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(3), pages 575-591, July.
    6. Dan Jackson, 2007. "Assessing the Implications of Publication Bias for Two Popular Estimates of between-Study Variance in Meta-Analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(1), pages 187-193, March.
    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. Augusteijn, Hilde & van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2017. "The Effect of Publication Bias on the Assessment of Heterogeneity," OSF Preprints gv25c, Center for Open Science.
    2. Augusteijn, Hilde Elisabeth Maria & van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2021. "Posterior Probabilities of Effect Sizes and Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis: An Intuitive Approach of Dealing with Publication Bias," OSF Preprints avkgj, Center for Open Science.
    3. Dan Jackson, 2018. "Discussion on Quantifying publication bias in meta‐analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(3), pages 795-796, September.
    4. Christian Harlos & Tim C. Edgell & Johan Hollander, 2017. "No evidence of publication bias in climate change science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 375-385, February.
    5. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    6. Freuli, Francesca & Held, Leonhard & Heyard, Rachel, 2022. "Replication success under questionable research practices – a simulation study," MetaArXiv s4b65_v1, Center for Open Science.
    7. Christian Heise & Joshua M. Pearce, 2020. "From Open Access to Open Science: The Path From Scientific Reality to Open Scientific Communication," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.
    8. Augusteijn, Hilde Elisabeth Maria & Wicherts, Jelte M. & Sijtsma, Klaas & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2023. "Quality assessment of scientific manuscripts in peer review and education," OSF Preprints 7dc6a_v1, Center for Open Science.
    9. Polák, Petr, 2017. "The productivity paradox: A meta-analysis," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 38-54.
    10. van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria, 2023. "Meta-analyzing non-preregistered and preregistered studies," MetaArXiv 2bj85_v1, Center for Open Science.
    11. Mei Tian & Yan Su & Xin Ru, 2016. "Perish or Publish in China: Pressures on Young Chinese Scholars to Publish in Internationally Indexed Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1, April.
    12. Camilo Germán Alberto Pérez Chaparro & Philipp Zech & Felipe Schuch & Bernd Wolfarth & Michael Rapp & Andreas Heiβel, 2018. "Effects of aerobic and resistance exercise alone or combined on strength and hormone outcomes for people living with HIV. A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, September.
    13. Pierre J C Chuard & Milan Vrtílek & Megan L Head & Michael D Jennions, 2019. "Evidence that nonsignificant results are sometimes preferred: Reverse P-hacking or selective reporting?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-7, January.
    14. van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2018. "P-uniform," MetaArXiv zqjr9, Center for Open Science.
    15. Marko Hofmann & Silja Meyer-Nieberg, 2018. "Time to dispense with the p-value in OR?," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(1), pages 193-214, March.
    16. Hladchenko, Myroslava & Moed, Henk F., 2021. "The effect of publication traditions and requirements in research assessment and funding policies upon the use of national journals in 28 post-socialist countries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    17. Sergio Nolazco & Kaspar Delhey & Shinichi Nakagawa & Anne Peters, 2022. "Ornaments are equally informative in male and female birds," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    18. Gabriel Nova & Sander van Cranenburgh & Stephane Hess, 2024. "Understanding the decision-making process of choice modellers," Papers 2411.01704, arXiv.org.
    19. Anaïs Besson & Alice Tarpin & Valentin Flaudias & Georges Brousse & Catherine Laporte & Amanda Benson & Valentin Navel & Jean-Baptiste Bouillon-Minois & Frédéric Dutheil, 2021. "Smoking Prevalence among Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-58, December.
    20. Brian Fabo & Martina Jancokova & Elisabeth Kempf & Lubos Pastor, 2020. "Fifty Shades of QE: Conflicts of Interest in Economic Research," Working Papers 2020-128, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.

    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:osf:osfxxx:gv25c_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.