288 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31873200)
1. Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects.
Kvarven A; Strømland E; Johannesson M
Nat Hum Behav; 2020 Apr; 4(4):423-434. PubMed ID: 31873200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Publication bias impacts on effect size, statistical power, and magnitude (Type M) and sign (Type S) errors in ecology and evolutionary biology.
Yang Y; Sánchez-Tójar A; O'Dea RE; Noble DWA; Koricheva J; Jennions MD; Parker TH; Lagisz M; Nakagawa S
BMC Biol; 2023 Apr; 21(1):71. PubMed ID: 37013585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. What meta-analyses reveal about the replicability of psychological research.
Stanley TD; Carter EC; Doucouliagos H
Psychol Bull; 2018 Dec; 144(12):1325-1346. PubMed ID: 30321017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Estimating the mean effect size in meta-analysis: bias, precision, and mean squared error of different weighting methods.
Van Den Noortgate W; Onghena P
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput; 2003 Nov; 35(4):504-11. PubMed ID: 14748494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: six practical recommendations.
Lakens D; Hilgard J; Staaks J
BMC Psychol; 2016 May; 4(1):24. PubMed ID: 27241618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Internal conceptual replications do not increase independent replication success.
Kunert R
Psychon Bull Rev; 2016 Oct; 23(5):1631-1638. PubMed ID: 27068542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Dependent effect sizes in meta-analysis: incorporating the degree of interdependence.
Cheung SF; Chan DK
J Appl Psychol; 2004 Oct; 89(5):780-91. PubMed ID: 15506860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Heterogeneity in direct replications in psychology and its association with effect size.
Olsson-Collentine A; Wicherts JM; van Assen MALM
Psychol Bull; 2020 Oct; 146(10):922-940. PubMed ID: 32700942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Publication bias in psychological science: prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses.
Ferguson CJ; Brannick MT
Psychol Methods; 2012 Mar; 17(1):120-8. PubMed ID: 21787082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature.
Sterne JA; Gavaghan D; Egger M
J Clin Epidemiol; 2000 Nov; 53(11):1119-29. PubMed ID: 11106885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Systematic Differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Meta-Analyses on the Same Topic: A Matched Pair Analysis.
Useem J; Brennan A; LaValley M; Vickery M; Ameli O; Reinen N; Gill CJ
PLoS One; 2015; 10(12):e0144980. PubMed ID: 26671213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Harnessing the power of excess statistical significance: Weighted and iterative least squares.
Stanley TD; Doucouliagos H
Psychol Methods; 2024 Apr; 29(2):407-420. PubMed ID: 35549315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Retrospective median power, false positive meta-analysis and large-scale replication.
Stanley TD; Doucouliagos H; Ioannidis JPA
Res Synth Methods; 2022 Jan; 13(1):88-108. PubMed ID: 34628722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research.
Schmucker CM; Blümle A; Schell LK; Schwarzer G; Oeller P; Cabrera L; von Elm E; Briel M; Meerpohl JJ;
PLoS One; 2017; 12(4):e0176210. PubMed ID: 28441452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Statistical analyses for studying replication: Meta-analytic perspectives.
Hedges LV; Schauer JM
Psychol Methods; 2019 Oct; 24(5):557-570. PubMed ID: 30070547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Publication bias examined in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine: A meta-meta-analysis.
van Aert RCM; Wicherts JM; van Assen MALM
PLoS One; 2019; 14(4):e0215052. PubMed ID: 30978228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The effect of publication bias on the Q test and assessment of heterogeneity.
Augusteijn HEM; van Aert RCM; van Assen MALM
Psychol Methods; 2019 Feb; 24(1):116-134. PubMed ID: 30489099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Fixed- versus random-effects models in meta-analysis: model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results.
Schmidt FL; Oh IS; Hayes TL
Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2009 Feb; 62(Pt 1):97-128. PubMed ID: 18001516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Reproducibility of individual effect sizes in meta-analyses in psychology.
Maassen E; van Assen MALM; Nuijten MB; Olsson-Collentine A; Wicherts JM
PLoS One; 2020; 15(5):e0233107. PubMed ID: 32459806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. p-Hacking and publication bias interact to distort meta-analytic effect size estimates.
Friese M; Frankenbach J
Psychol Methods; 2020 Aug; 25(4):456-471. PubMed ID: 31789538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
