The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Nonindependence and sensitivity analyses in ecological and evolutionary meta‐analyses
Abstract
Meta‐analysis is an important tool for synthesizing research on a variety of topics in ecology and evolution, including molecular ecology, but can be susceptible to nonindependence. Nonindependence can affect two major interrelated components of a meta‐analysis: (i) the calculation of effect size statistics and (ii) the estimation of overall meta‐analytic estimates and their uncertainty. While some solutions to nonindependence exist at the statistical analysis stages, there is little advice on what to do when complex analyses are not possible, or when studies with nonindependent experimental designs exist in the data. Here we argue that exploring the effects of procedural decisions in a meta‐analysis (e.g. inclusion of different quality data, choice of effect size) and statistical assumptions (e.g. assuming no phylogenetic covariance) using sensitivity analyses are extremely important in assessing the impact of nonindependence. Sensitivity analyses can provide greater confidence in results and highlight important limitations of empirical work (e.g. impact of study design on overall effects). Despite their importance, sensitivity analyses are seldom applied to problems of nonindependence. To encourage better practice for dealing with nonindependence in meta‐analytic studies, we present accessible examples demonstrating the impact that ignoring nonindependence can have on meta‐analytic estimates. We also provide pragmatic solutions for dealing with nonindependent study designs, and for analysing dependent effect sizes. Additionally, we offer reporting guidelines that will facilitate disclosure of the sources of nonindependence in meta‐analyses, leading to greater transparency and more robust conclusions.
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
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
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
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Mixed-Effects Models in Sand S-PLUS
Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0318-1 · Cited by 11,187
Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution
Bolker, B. M., Brooks, M. E., Clark, C. J., Geange, S. W., Poulsen, J. R., Stevens, M. H. H., & White, J.-S. S. (2009) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008 · Cited by 8,910
Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments
Hurlbert, S. H. (1984) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/1942661 · Cited by 8,377
MCMC Methods for Multi-Response Generalized Linear Mixed Models: The MCMCglmmR Package
Hadfield, J. D. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v033.i02 · Cited by 4,799
The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
Cited by
O'Dea, R. E., Lagisz, M., Jennions, M. D., Koricheva, J., Noble, D. W. A., Parker, T. H., Gurevitch, J., Page, M. J., Stewart, G., Moher, D., et al. (2021) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12721 · Cited by 697
Self-citationMeta-evaluation of meta-analysis: ten appraisal questions for biologists
Nakagawa, S., Noble, D. W. A., Senior, A. M., & Lagisz, M. (2017) · BMC Biology · doi:10.1186/s12915-017-0357-7 · Cited by 579
Self-citationMethods for testing publication bias in ecological and evolutionary meta‐analyses
Nakagawa, S., Lagisz, M., Jennions, M. D., Koricheva, J., Noble, D. W. A., Parker, T. H., Sánchez‐Tójar, A., Yang, Y., & O'Dea, R. E. (2022) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13724 · Cited by 399
Self-citationGlobal effects of non‐native tree species on multiple ecosystem services
Castro‐Díez, P., Vaz, A. S., Silva, J. S., van Loo, M., Alonso, Á., Aponte, C., Bayón, Á., Bellingham, P. J., Chiuffo, M. C., DiManno, N., et al. (2019) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12511 · Cited by 281
Gender differences in individual variation in academic grades fail to fit expected patterns for STEM
O’Dea, R. E., Lagisz, M., Jennions, M. D., & Nakagawa, S. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06292-0 · Cited by 253
Self-citationAn assessment of statistical methods for nonindependent data in ecological meta‐analyses
Song, C., Peacor, S. D., Osenberg, C. W., & Bence, J. R. (2020) · Ecology · doi:10.1002/ecy.3184 · Cited by 71
Luo, X., Chen, Y., Chen, J., Zhang, Y., Li, M., Xiong, C., & Yan, J. (2022) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06568-0 · Cited by 57
Downie, A. T., Wu, N. C., Cramp, R. L., & Franklin, C. E. (2023) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.16848 · Cited by 34
Transgenerational effects of obesogenic diets in rodents: A meta‐analysis
Anwer, H., Morris, M. J., Noble, D. W. A., Nakagawa, S., & Lagisz, M. (2022) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.13342 · Cited by 14
Self-citationYang, Y., Lagisz, M., Williams, C., Pan, J., Noble, D., & Nakagawa, S. (2023) · doi:10.32942/x20g6q · Cited by 2
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Noble, D. W. A., Lagisz, M., O'dea, R. E., & Nakagawa, S.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-03-09
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2410-2425
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2582721760
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 58
- FWCI
- 14.92
- 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.
