• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Primary study authors believe strong assoc. exists in heterogeneous meta-analysis vs methodologists

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
From 2012

Primary study authors of significant studies are more likely to believe that a strong association exists in a heterogeneous meta-analysis compared with methodologists.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Jul;65(7):740-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.008. Epub 2012 Apr 25.

Panagiotou OA1, Ioannidis JP.

Author information

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the interpretation of a highly heterogeneous meta-analysis by authors of primary studies and by methodologists.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:

We surveyed the authors of studies on the association between insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) and prostate cancer, and 20 meta-analysis methodologists.

Authors and methodologists presented with the respective meta-analysis results were queried about the effect size and potential causality of the association.

We evaluated whether author responses correlated with the number of IGF-related articles they had published and their study results included in the meta-analysis.

We also compared authors' and methodologists' responses.

RESULTS:

Authors who had published more IGF-related papers offered more generous effect size estimates for the association (ρ(s)=0.61, P=0.01) and higher likelihood that the odds ratio (OR) was greater than 1.20 (ρ(s)=0.63, P=0.01).

Authors who had published themselves studies with statistically significant effects for a positive association were more likely to believe that the true OR is greater than 1.20 compared with methodologists (median likelihood 50% versus 2.5%, P=0.01).

CONCLUSION:

Researchers are influenced by their own investment in the field, when interpreting a meta-analysis that includes their own study.

Authors who published significant results are more likely to believe that a strong association exists compared with methodologists.

Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier Inc.

PMID: 22537426 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE