The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Works?: Selectivity Models and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Summary: What works seeks to identify rehabilitative treatments which are successful in reducing the likelihood that offenders will reoffend. A large number of small case–control studies have been reported in the literature, but with conflicting results. Meta-analysis has been used to reconcile these findings, but again with conflicting results. We reanalyse one of the published meta-analyses in the corrections literature and argue the importance of specifically modelling heterogeneity and selection bias. A sensitivity approach is advocated, suggesting lower average effects and substantially increased measures of uncertainty. The method is tested on a medical example where independent confirmation from a large controlled trial is also available.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study
Smith, T. C., Spiegelhalter, D. J., & Thomas, A. (1995) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780142408 · Cited by 568 · cited 2×
“The problem of heterogeneity has been extensively studied in the meta-analysis of clinical trials (e.g. Smith et al. (1995)), although the problem seems even more acute in the corrections area.”
Background
Cited by
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., & Egger, M. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00377-8 · Cited by 3,779
Publication and related bias in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., Gavaghan, D., & Egger, M. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00242-0 · Cited by 2,282
Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101 · Cited by 2,225
Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010 · Cited by 2,053
Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, H. (2014) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1095 · Cited by 916
Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity
Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., Lau, J., & Olkin, I. (2003) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1461 · Cited by 809
An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings
Ioannidis, J. P., & Trikalinos, T. A. (2007) · Clinical Trials · doi:10.1177/1740774507079441 · Cited by 751
Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2007) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2889 · Cited by 716
The Power of Bias in Economics Research
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, H. (2017) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1111/ecoj.12461 · Cited by 634
Meta-analysis, funnel plots and sensitivity analysis
Copas, J. (2000) · Biostatistics · doi:10.1093/biostatistics/1.3.247 · Cited by 503
Self-citationMultiple-bias modelling for analysis of observational data
Greenland, S. (2005) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2004.00349.x · Cited by 497
Publication Bias in Research Synthesis: Sensitivity Analysis Using A Priori Weight Functions.
Vevea, J. L., & Woods, C. M. (2005) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.10.4.428 · Cited by 461
Investigating and Dealing with Publication and Other Biases
Sterne, J. A. C., Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (2001) · Systematic Reviews in Health Care · doi:10.1002/9780470693926.ch11 · Cited by 449
Publication and related biases.
Song, Eastwood, Gilbody, Duley, & Sutton (2000) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta4100 · Cited by 427
McShane, B. B., Böckenholt, U., & Hansen, K. T. (2016) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691616662243 · Cited by 398
GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology
Efthimiou, O., Debray, T. P. A., van Valkenhoef, G., Trelle, S., Panayidou, K., Moons, K. G. M., Reitsma, J. B., Shang, A., Salanti, G., & on behalf of GetReal Methods Review Group (2016) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1195 · Cited by 401
Moreno, S. G., Sutton, A. J., Ades, A., Stanley, T. D., Abrams, K. R., Peters, J. L., & Cooper, N. J. (2009) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-2 · Cited by 373
Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis
Page, M. J., Higgins, J. P., & Sterne, J. A. (2019) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch13 · Cited by 402
Modelling publication bias in meta-analysis: a review
Sutton, A. J., Song, F., Gilbody, S. M., & Abrams, K. R. (2000) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/096228020000900503 · Cited by 288
Publication bias as a threat to the validity of meta-analytic results
Rothstein, H. R. (2008) · Journal of Experimental Criminology · doi:10.1007/s11292-007-9046-9 · Cited by 216
Debray, T. P. A., Moons, K. G. M., & Riley, R. D. (2018) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1266 · Cited by 212
Outcome selection bias in meta-analysis
Williamson, P. R., Gamble, C., Altman, D. G., & Hutton, J. L. (2005) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1191/0962280205sm415oa · Cited by 188
Could It Be Better to Discard 90% of the Data? A Statistical Paradox
Stanley, T. D., Jarrell, S. B., & Doucouliagos, H. (2010) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1198/tast.2009.08205 · Cited by 170
A historical review of publication bias
Marks‐Anglin, A., & Chen, Y. (2020) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1452 · Cited by 165
Detecting and adjusting for small‐study effects in meta‐analysis
Rücker, G., Carpenter, J. R., & Schwarzer, G. (2011) · Biometrical Journal · doi:10.1002/bimj.201000151 · Cited by 132
Finding the power to reduce publication bias
Stanley, T. D., Doucouliagos, H., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.7228 · Cited by 131
Rupp, C., Doebler, P., Ehring, T., & Vossbeck‐Elsebusch, A. N. (2017) · Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy · doi:10.1002/cpp.2039 · Cited by 76
Meta-analysis, can it ever fail?
Kotiaho, J. S., & Tomkins, J. L. (2002) · Oikos · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.960316.x · Cited by 52
Mueller, K. F., Meerpohl, J. J., Briel, M., Antes, G., von Elm, E., Lang, B., Motschall, E., Schwarzer, G., & Bassler, D. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.015 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Copas, J.
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-01-01
- Volume
- 162
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 95-109
- ISSN
- 0964-1998 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-985X
- OpenAlex
- W1984535767
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
