Cited by 299Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Heterogeneity in ecological and evolutionary meta‐analyses: its magnitude and implications

Open access
Senior, Alistair M., Grueber, Catherine E., Kamiya, Tsukushi, Lagisz, Malgorzata, O'Dwyer, Katie, Santos, Eduardo S. A., Nakagawa, Shinichi·2016·Ecology

Abstract

Meta‐analysis is the gold standard for synthesis in ecology and evolution. Together with estimating overall effect magnitudes, meta‐analyses estimate differences between effect sizes via heterogeneity statistics. It is widely hypothesized that heterogeneity will be present in ecological/evolutionary meta‐analyses due to the system‐specific nature of biological phenomena. Despite driving recommended best practices, the generality of heterogeneity in ecological data has never been systematically reviewed. We reviewed 700 studies, finding 325 that used formal meta‐analysis, of which total heterogeneity was reported in fewer than 40%. We used second‐order meta‐analysis to collate heterogeneity statistics from 86 studies. Our analysis revealed that the median and mean heterogeneity, expressed as I2, are 84.67% and 91.69%, respectively. These estimates are well above “high” heterogeneity (i.e., 75%), based on widely adopted benchmarks. We encourage reporting heterogeneity in the forms of I2 and the estimated variance components (e.g., τ 2) as standard practice. These statistics provide vital insights in to the degree to which effect sizes vary, and provide the statistical support for the exploration of predictors of effect‐size magnitude. Along with standard meta‐regression techniques that fit moderator variables, multi‐level models now allow partitioning of heterogeneity among correlated (e.g., phylogenetic) structures that exist within data.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ecy.1591

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Another challenge is an unfortunate outcome of the high impact and growing prestige of meta-analyses coupled with use of metrics such as citation numbers and h-indices in evaluations of research accomplishments, resulting in unease among some primary researchers about the fairness and rewards of the scientific process.

    “Another challenge is an unfortunate outcome of the high impact and growing prestige of metaanalyses 71 , coupled with use of metrics such as citation numbers and h -indices in evaluations of research accomplishments, resulting in unease among some primary researchers about the fairness and rewards of the scientific process 72 .”

    From Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018) · cites this paper as [71]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Higgins, J. P. T., and S. Green. 2008. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK.
  2. Mengersen, K., C. H. Schmid, M. D. Jennions, and J. Gurevitch. 2013. Statistical models and approaches to inference. Pages 89-107 in J. Koricheva, J. Gurevitch, and K. Mengersen, editors. Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution. Princeton Univerisity Press, New Jersey, USA.
  3. Hadfield, J. D. 2010. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: The MCMCglmm R package. Journal of Statistical Software 33:1-22.
  4. Hadfield, J. D., and S. Nakagawa. 2010. General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology: phylogenies, taxonomies and multi-trait models for continuous and categorical characters. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23:494-508.
  5. Rosenberg, M. S. 2013. Moments and least-squares based approaches to meta-analytic inference. Pages 108-124 in J. Koricheva, J. Gurevitch, and K. Mengersen, editors. Handbook of Meta-Analysis in Ecology and Evolution. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA.
  6. Viechtbauer, W. 2010. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software 36:1-48.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Senior, A. M., Grueber, C. E., Kamiya, T., Lagisz, M., O'Dwyer, K., Santos, E. S. A., & Nakagawa, S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Department of Chemistry and Biology Ryerson University Toronto Ontario M5B 2K3 Canada
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
Corresponding author
Senior, Alistair M.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-12
Volume
97
Issue
12
Pages
3293-3299
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W2531477340
Cited by
299
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 7 · 2013: 1
FWCI
14.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2012/20468‐4)
  • Australian Research Council (FT130100268)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
heterogeneity, I2 statistic, reporting practices, phylogenetic structure, multi-level model, meta-regression
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Ecology, Biological Evolution, Research Design, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Models, Statistical, Bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review