What is the consequence when meta-analyses aggregate literature composed only of published, positive studies?
Answer
They often inflate the perceived magnitude or certainty of an effect.
Because these analyses sample only from the subset where an effect is present (due to unpublished null findings), the resulting aggregated effect size tends to be larger than warranted by the total evidence.
Related Questions
What primary threat to scientific understanding do null results directly address?What is the consequence when meta-analyses aggregate literature composed only of published, positive studies?What key role do null results play in mapping the boundaries of reality?Why is neglecting to publish well-powered null findings considered costly to the scientific community?What is the scientific value of a replication study that yields a null result contradicting an earlier positive study?Under which condition does a reported null result provide robust evidence that the effect size is negligible?What impact do high-quality null findings have on clinical practice and policy decisions?What must cultural recalibration address regarding the perceived quality of null results among researchers?How does the concept of 'moderator variables' relate to null findings in research design?What communication refinement is suggested for reporting results that are 'not significant' to make them more informative?