Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Meta-analysis is a method of synthesis of quantitative data from multiple independent studies addressing a common research question. An important part of this method involves computing a combined effect size across all of the studies.
Metapsychology (Greek: meta 'beyond, transcending', and ψυχολογία 'psychology') [2] is that aspect of a psychological theory that discusses the terms that are essential to it, but leaves aside or transcends the phenomena that the theory deals with.
Examples of such works are scientific reviews and meta-analyses. These and related practices face various challenges and are a subject of metascience. Various issues with included or available studies such as, for example, heterogeneity of methods used may lead to faulty conclusions of the meta-analysis. [115]
See Experimental psychology for many details. Field experiment; Focus group; Interview, can be structured or unstructured. Meta-analysis; Neuroimaging and other psychophysiological methods; Observational study, can be naturalistic (see natural experiment), participant or controlled. Program evaluation; Quasi-experiment; Self-report inventory
For example, evidence-based medicine is increasingly reliant on meta-analysis to assess evidence. Conceptual illustration of how publication bias affects effect estimates in a meta-analysis. When negative effects are not published, the overall effect estimate tends to be inflated. From Nilsonne (2023). [28]
The PDF of the paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" is a 2005 essay written by John Ioannidis, a professor at the Stanford School of Medicine, and published in PLOS Medicine. [1] It is considered foundational to the field of metascience.
The aim of the PRISMA statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. [3] PRISMA has mainly focused on systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized trials, but it can also be used as a basis for reporting reviews of other types of research (e.g., diagnostic studies, observational studies).
A meta-analysis by Bösch, et al (2006) of 380 studies found that "statistical significance of the overall database provides no directive as to whether the phenomenon is genuine or not" and came to the conclusion that "publication bias appears to be the easiest and most encompassing explanation for the primary findings of the meta-analysis." [31]