论文标题
出版物选择偏向医学，环境科学，心理学和经济学的偏差偏见
Footprint of publication selection bias on meta-analyses in medicine, environmental sciences, psychology, and economics
论文作者
论文摘要
出版选择偏见破坏了系统积累的证据。为了评估该问题的程度，我们调查了超过68,000个荟萃分析，其中包含来自药物（67,386/597,699），环境科学（199/12,707），心理学（605/23,563）和经济学（327/91,421）的700,000多个效应尺寸估计。我们的结果表明，经济学中的荟萃分析是最严重的出版物选择偏见，紧随其后的是环境科学和心理学中的荟萃分析，而医学中的荟萃分析的污染最少。在调整了出版选择偏见之后，出现影响的中位数可能从99.9％降低到经济学的29.7％，从98.9％到55.7％，从99.8％到70.7％，至70.7％，从38.0％，医学中的38.0％至29.7％。绝对效应大小（就标准化平均差异而言）从d = 0.20降低到经济学的d = 0.07，从d = 0.37到心理学的d = 0.26，从d = 0.62到d = 0.43，从d = 0.43，从d = 0.24到医学中的d = 0.24到d = 0.13。
Publication selection bias undermines the systematic accumulation of evidence. To assess the extent of this problem, we survey over 68,000 meta-analyses containing over 700,000 effect size estimates from medicine (67,386/597,699), environmental sciences (199/12,707), psychology (605/23,563), and economics (327/91,421). Our results indicate that meta-analyses in economics are the most severely contaminated by publication selection bias, closely followed by meta-analyses in environmental sciences and psychology, whereas meta-analyses in medicine are contaminated the least. After adjusting for publication selection bias, the median probability of the presence of an effect decreased from 99.9% to 29.7% in economics, from 98.9% to 55.7% in psychology, from 99.8% to 70.7% in environmental sciences, and from 38.0% to 29.7% in medicine. The median absolute effect sizes (in terms of standardized mean differences) decreased from d = 0.20 to d = 0.07 in economics, from d = 0.37 to d = 0.26 in psychology, from d = 0.62 to d = 0.43 in environmental sciences, and from d = 0.24 to d = 0.13 in medicine.
