Quantitative evidence synthesis: a practical guide on meta-analysis, meta-regression, and publication bias tests for environmental sciences

被引:0
|
作者
Shinichi Nakagawa
Yefeng Yang
Erin L. Macartney
Rebecca Spake
Malgorzata Lagisz
机构
[1] University of New South Wales,Evolution & Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences
[2] Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University,Theoretical Sciences Visiting Program
[3] University of Reading,School of Biological Sciences, Whiteknights Campus
来源
关键词
Hierarchical models; Robust variance estimation; Spatial dependency; Variance–covariance matrix; Meta-analysis of variance; Missing data; Network meta-analysis; Multivariate meta-analysis;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Meta-analysis is a quantitative way of synthesizing results from multiple studies to obtain reliable evidence of an intervention or phenomenon. Indeed, an increasing number of meta-analyses are conducted in environmental sciences, and resulting meta-analytic evidence is often used in environmental policies and decision-making. We conducted a survey of recent meta-analyses in environmental sciences and found poor standards of current meta-analytic practice and reporting. For example, only ~ 40% of the 73 reviewed meta-analyses reported heterogeneity (variation among effect sizes beyond sampling error), and publication bias was assessed in fewer than half. Furthermore, although almost all the meta-analyses had multiple effect sizes originating from the same studies, non-independence among effect sizes was considered in only half of the meta-analyses. To improve the implementation of meta-analysis in environmental sciences, we here outline practical guidance for conducting a meta-analysis in environmental sciences. We describe the key concepts of effect size and meta-analysis and detail procedures for fitting multilevel meta-analysis and meta-regression models and performing associated publication bias tests. We demonstrate a clear need for environmental scientists to embrace multilevel meta-analytic models, which explicitly model dependence among effect sizes, rather than the commonly used random-effects models. Further, we discuss how reporting and visual presentations of meta-analytic results can be much improved by following reporting guidelines such as PRISMA-EcoEvo (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology). This paper, along with the accompanying online tutorial, serves as a practical guide on conducting a complete set of meta-analytic procedures (i.e., meta-analysis, heterogeneity quantification, meta-regression, publication bias tests and sensitivity analysis) and also as a gateway to more advanced, yet appropriate, methods.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Quantitative evidence synthesis: a practical guide on meta-analysis, meta-regression, and publication bias tests for environmental sciences
    Nakagawa, Shinichi
    Yang, Yefeng
    Macartney, Erin L.
    Spake, Rebecca
    Lagisz, Malgorzata
    ENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE, 2023, 12 (01)
  • [2] The conditional nature of publication bias: a meta-regression analysis
    Owen, Erica
    Li, Quan
    POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND METHODS, 2021, 9 (04) : 867 - 877
  • [3] Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias
    Stanley, T. D.
    Doucouliagos, Hristos
    RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2014, 5 (01) : 60 - 78
  • [4] Correcting for outcome reporting bias in a meta-analysis: A meta-regression approach
    van Aert, Robbie C. M.
    Wicherts, Jelte M.
    BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2024, 56 (03) : 1994 - 2012
  • [5] A kinked meta-regression model for publication bias correction
    Bom, Pedro R. D.
    Rachinger, Heiko
    RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2019, 10 (04) : 497 - 514
  • [6] Correcting for outcome reporting bias in a meta-analysis: A meta-regression approach
    Robbie C. M. van Aert
    Jelte M. Wicherts
    Behavior Research Methods, 2024, 56 : 1994 - 2012
  • [8] Empirical Comparison of Publication Bias Tests in Meta-Analysis
    Lin, Lifeng
    Chu, Haitao
    Murad, Mohammad Hassan
    Hong, Chuan
    Qu, Zhiyong
    Cole, Stephen R.
    Chen, Yong
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2018, 33 (08) : 1260 - 1267
  • [9] Empirical Comparison of Publication Bias Tests in Meta-Analysis
    Lifeng Lin
    Haitao Chu
    Mohammad Hassan Murad
    Chuan Hong
    Zhiyong Qu
    Stephen R. Cole
    Yong Chen
    Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2018, 33 : 1260 - 1267
  • [10] Median bias reduction in random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression
    Kyriakou, Sophia
    Kosmidis, Ioannis
    Sartori, Nicola
    STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2019, 28 (06) : 1622 - 1636