Testing for funnel plot asymmetry of standardized mean differences

Pustejovsky, James E.; Rodgers, Melissa A.

doi:10.1002/jrsm.1332

Cited by 203 publications

(170 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

150

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The funnel plot asymmetry test examines the association between the magnitude of effect size estimates and a measure of their precision. To measure precision, we used the scaled standard error, which was calculated as the standard error of the numerator of the effect size estimate, divided by the denominator of the effect size estimate; the scaled standard error was used to avoid an artifactual association between the effect size estimate and its standard error . The funnel plot asymmetry test also used robust variance estimation to account for the dependence of effect size estimates nested within studies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of psychosocial interventions on meaning and purpose in adults with cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Park

Pustejovsky

Trevino

et al. 2019

Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meaning and purpose in life are associated with the mental and physical health of patients with cancer and survivors and also constitute highly valued outcomes in themselves. Because meaning and purpose are often threatened by a cancer diagnosis and treatment, interventions have been developed to promote meaning and purpose. The present meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated effects of psychosocial interventions on meaning/purpose in adults with cancer and tested potential moderators of intervention effects. Six literature databases were systematically searched to identify RCTs of psychosocial interventions in which meaning or purpose was an outcome. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines, rater pairs extracted and evaluated data for quality. Findings were synthesized across studies with standard meta‐analytic methods, including meta‐regression with robust variance estimation and risk‐of‐bias sensitivity analysis. Twenty‐nine RCTs were identified, and they encompassed 82 treatment effects among 2305 patients/survivors. Psychosocial interventions were associated with significant improvements in meaning/purpose (g = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22‐0.52; P < .0001). Interventions designed to enhance meaning/purpose (g = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24‐0.60) demonstrated significantly higher effect sizes than those targeting other primary outcomes (g = 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09‐0.27; P = .009). Few other intervention, clinical, or demographic characteristics tested were significant moderators. In conclusion, the results suggest that psychosocial interventions are associated with small to medium effects in enhancing meaning/purpose among patients with cancer, and the benefits are comparable to those of interventions designed to reduce depression, pain, and fatigue in patients with cancer. Methodological concerns include small samples and ambiguity regarding allocation concealment. Future research should focus on explicitly meaning‐centered interventions and identify optimal treatment or survivorship phases for implementation.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of psychosocial interventions on meaning and purpose in adults with cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Park

Pustejovsky

Trevino

et al. 2019

Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most commonly used methods are visual inspection of a funnel plot and Egger’s test of funnel plot symmetry (Sterne, Egger, & Moher, 2011). These methods, however, do not perform well particularly when there is heterogeneity among effect sizes (Macaskill, Walter, & Irwig, 2001; Pustejovsky & Rodgers, 2019). It is increasingly common for meta-analysts to use selection modeling strategies to explore the robustness of meta-analysis to publication bias (Citkowicz & Vevea, 2017; Vevea & Hedges, 1995).…”

Section: Best Practice Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological Guidance Paper: High-Quality Meta-Analysis in a Systematic Review

Pigott

Polanin

2019

Review of Educational Research

319

256

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This methodological guidance article discusses the elements of a high-quality meta-analysis that is conducted within the context of a systematic review. Meta-analysis, a set of statistical techniques for synthesizing the results of multiple studies, is used when the guiding research question focuses on a quantitative summary of study results. In this guidance article, we discuss the systematic review methods that support high-quality meta-analyses and outline best practice meta-analysis methods for describing the distribution of effect sizes in a set of eligible studies. We also provide suggestions for transparently reporting the methods and results of meta-analyses to influence practice and policy. Given the increasing use of meta-analysis for important policy decisions, the methods and results of meta-analysis should be both transparent and reproducible.

show abstract

“…In other words, the method assumes that the probability of an effect not to be suppressed is a function of its p-value. As recommended by Pustejovsky and Rodgers (2019), the weights used in the publication bias analyses were not a function of the effect sizes (for more details, see Appendices C and D in the Supplemental Online Materials). We performed these analyses with the Metafor R package (Viechtbauer, 2010).…”

Section: Publication Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Music training has repeatedly been claimed to positively impact children's cognitive skills and academic achievement (literacy and mathematics). This claim relies on the assumption that engaging in intellectually demanding activities fosters particular domain-general cognitive skills, or even general intelligence. The present meta-analytic review (N = 6,984, k = 254, m = 54) shows that this belief is incorrect. Once the quality of study design is controlled for, the overall effect of music training programs is null (g ≈ 0) and highly consistent across studies (τ 2 ≈ 0). Results of Bayesian analyses employing distributional assumptions (informative priors) derived from previous research in cognitive training corroborate these conclusions. Small statistically significant overall effects are obtained only in those studies implementing no random allocation of participants and employing non-active controls (g ≈ 0.200, p < .001). Interestingly, music training is ineffective regardless of the type of outcome measure (e.g., verbal, non-verbal, speed-related, etc.), participants' age, and duration of training. Furthermore, we note that, beyond metaanalysis of experimental studies, a considerable amount of cross-sectional evidence indicates that engagement in music has no impact on people's non-music cognitive skills or academic achievement. We conclude that researchers' optimism about the benefits of music training is empirically unjustified and stems from misinterpretation of the empirical data and, possibly, confirmation bias.

show abstract

Testing for funnel plot asymmetry of standardized mean differences

Cited by 203 publications

References 63 publications

Effects of psychosocial interventions on meaning and purpose in adults with cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Effects of psychosocial interventions on meaning and purpose in adults with cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Methodological Guidance Paper: High-Quality Meta-Analysis in a Systematic Review

Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About