Cited by 334Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and BibliometricsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Of apples and oranges, file drawers and garbage: Why validity issues in meta-analysis will not go away

Sharpe, Donald·1997·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

This paper examines how threats to the validity of meta-analysis have been dealt with by clinical researchers employing this approach to literature review. Three validity threats were identified--mixing of dissimilar studies, publication bias, and inclusion of poor quality studies. Approaches to addressing these threats were evaluated for their effectiveness and popularity by surveying 32 published meta-analyses in clinical psychology. Distrust of meta-analysis, however, was found to transcend these validity threats. Other explanations for why this popular research strategy continues to receive widespread criticism were considered. Suggestions were made for how meta-analysis might better address these concerns.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0272-7358(97)00056-1

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sharpe, D.
Affiliations
University of Regina (CA)
Corresponding author
Sharpe, Donald
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-12
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
881-901
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2050402601
Cited by
334
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 19
FWCI
8.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
meta-analysis validity, publication bias, study quality, clinical psychology research, research critique, literature review methods
MeSH terms
Humans, Research, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Reproducibility of Results

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