Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nonindependence and sensitivity analyses in ecological and evolutionary meta‐analyses

Noble, Daniel W.A., Lagisz, Malgorzata, O'dea, Rose E., Nakagawa, Shinichi·2017·Molecular Ecology
DOI 10.1111/mec.14031
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/mec.14031

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 267

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
DOI
10.1111/mec.14031
OpenAlex
W2582721760
Cited by
267
References
57
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.