估计选择性报告的程度:在经济学中的应用。

IF 5 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY Research Synthesis Methods Pub Date : 2024-02-21 DOI:10.1002/jrsm.1711
Stephan B. Bruns, Teshome K. Deressa, T. D. Stanley, Chris Doucouliagos, John P. A. Ioannidis
{"title":"估计选择性报告的程度:在经济学中的应用。","authors":"Stephan B. Bruns,&nbsp;Teshome K. Deressa,&nbsp;T. D. Stanley,&nbsp;Chris Doucouliagos,&nbsp;John P. A. Ioannidis","doi":"10.1002/jrsm.1711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Using a sample of 70,399 published <i>p</i>-values from 192 meta-analyses, we empirically estimate the counterfactual distribution of <i>p</i>-values in the absence of any biases. Comparing observed <i>p</i>-values with counterfactually expected <i>p</i>-values allows us to estimate how many <i>p</i>-values are published as being statistically significant when they should have been published as non-significant. We estimate the extent of selectively reported <i>p</i>-values to range between 57.7% and 71.9% of the significant <i>p</i>-values. The counterfactual <i>p</i>-value distribution also allows us to assess shifts of <i>p</i>-values along the entire distribution of published <i>p</i>-values, revealing that particularly very small <i>p</i>-values (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) are unexpectedly abundant in the published literature. Subsample analysis suggests that the extent of selective reporting is reduced in research fields that use experimental designs, analyze microeconomics research questions, and have at least some adequately powered studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":"15 4","pages":"590-602"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jrsm.1711","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimating the extent of selective reporting: An application to economics\",\"authors\":\"Stephan B. Bruns,&nbsp;Teshome K. Deressa,&nbsp;T. D. Stanley,&nbsp;Chris Doucouliagos,&nbsp;John P. A. Ioannidis\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jrsm.1711\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Using a sample of 70,399 published <i>p</i>-values from 192 meta-analyses, we empirically estimate the counterfactual distribution of <i>p</i>-values in the absence of any biases. Comparing observed <i>p</i>-values with counterfactually expected <i>p</i>-values allows us to estimate how many <i>p</i>-values are published as being statistically significant when they should have been published as non-significant. We estimate the extent of selectively reported <i>p</i>-values to range between 57.7% and 71.9% of the significant <i>p</i>-values. The counterfactual <i>p</i>-value distribution also allows us to assess shifts of <i>p</i>-values along the entire distribution of published <i>p</i>-values, revealing that particularly very small <i>p</i>-values (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) are unexpectedly abundant in the published literature. Subsample analysis suggests that the extent of selective reporting is reduced in research fields that use experimental designs, analyze microeconomics research questions, and have at least some adequately powered studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":226,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Synthesis Methods\",\"volume\":\"15 4\",\"pages\":\"590-602\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jrsm.1711\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Synthesis Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1711\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1711","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们使用 192 项元分析中 70,399 个已发表 p 值的样本,根据经验估算了在没有任何偏差的情况下 p 值的反事实分布。将观察到的 p 值与反事实预期的 p 值进行比较,我们就能估算出有多少 p 值在本应作为非显著性发表的情况下却被作为具有统计学意义的 p 值发表了。我们估计选择性报告的 p 值占显著 p 值的 57.7% 到 71.9%。通过反事实 p 值分布,我们还可以评估 p 值在整个已公布 p 值分布中的移动情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Estimating the extent of selective reporting: An application to economics

Using a sample of 70,399 published p-values from 192 meta-analyses, we empirically estimate the counterfactual distribution of p-values in the absence of any biases. Comparing observed p-values with counterfactually expected p-values allows us to estimate how many p-values are published as being statistically significant when they should have been published as non-significant. We estimate the extent of selectively reported p-values to range between 57.7% and 71.9% of the significant p-values. The counterfactual p-value distribution also allows us to assess shifts of p-values along the entire distribution of published p-values, revealing that particularly very small p-values (p < 0.001) are unexpectedly abundant in the published literature. Subsample analysis suggests that the extent of selective reporting is reduced in research fields that use experimental designs, analyze microeconomics research questions, and have at least some adequately powered studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research Synthesis Methods
Research Synthesis Methods MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGYMULTID-MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines. Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines. By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A tutorial on aggregating evidence from conceptual replication studies using the product Bayes factor Evolving use of the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool in biomedical systematic reviews Exploring methodological approaches used in network meta-analysis of psychological interventions: A scoping review An evaluation of the performance of stopping rules in AI-aided screening for psychological meta-analytical research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1