Using collaboration networks to identify authorship dependence in meta‐analysis results

Meta-analytic methods are powerful resources to summarize the existing evidence concerning a given research question and are widely used in many academic fields. Meta-analyses can also be used to study sources of heterogeneity and bias among results, which should be considered to avoid inaccuracies. Many of these sources can be related to study authorship, as both methodological heterogeneity and researcher bias may lead to deviations in results between different research groups. In this work, we describe a method to objectively attribute study authorship within a given meta-analysis to different research groups by using graph cluster analysis of collaboration networks. We then provide empirical examples of how the research group of origin can impact effect size in distinct types of meta-analyses, demonstrating how non-independence between within-group results can bias effect size estimates if uncorrected. Finally, we show that multilevel random-effects models using research group as a level of analysis can be a simple tool for correcting for authorship dependence in results.

[1]  Dan Jackson,et al.  Multivariate meta-analysis: Potential and promise , 2011, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  Lisa Bero,et al.  Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  J. Hughey,et al.  Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article , 2019, eLife.

[4]  Bernd Rinn,et al.  Probing the Reproducibility of Leaf Growth and Molecular Phenotypes: A Comparison of Three Arabidopsis Accessions Cultivated in Ten Laboratories1[W] , 2010, Plant Physiology.

[5]  J. Crabbe,et al.  Genetics of mouse behavior: interactions with laboratory environment. , 1999, Science.

[6]  Richard McElreath,et al.  The natural selection of bad science , 2016, Royal Society Open Science.

[7]  J. Ioannidis Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated , 2008, Epidemiology.

[8]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science , 2008, PLoS medicine.

[9]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  C. Mulrow,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews , 1994 .

[11]  M. Vinberg,et al.  Peripheral blood brain-derived neurotrophic factor in bipolar disorder: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis , 2016, Molecular Psychiatry.

[12]  S Duval,et al.  Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis , 2000, Biometrics.

[13]  F. Song,et al.  Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. , 2010, Health technology assessment.

[14]  Gillian L. Currie,et al.  Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: A practical guide , 2014, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[15]  D. Moher,et al.  Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study , 2017, Systematic Reviews.

[16]  Spyros Konstantopoulos,et al.  Fixed effects and variance components estimation in three‐level meta‐analysis , 2011, Research synthesis methods.

[17]  G. Smith,et al.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test , 1997, BMJ.

[18]  T Greco,et al.  Review Article , 2022 .

[19]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package , 2010 .

[20]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[21]  D. Altman,et al.  Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guidelines and practice , 2002, Journal of health services research & policy.

[22]  B. Djulbegovic,et al.  Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  J. Sánchez-Meca,et al.  Testing Categorical Moderators in Mixed-Effects Meta-analysis in the Presence of Heteroscedasticity , 2019, The Journal of Experimental Education.

[24]  J. Hughey,et al.  Meta-Research: Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article. , 2019, eLife.

[25]  Santiago G. Moreno,et al.  Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study , 2009, BMC medical research methodology.

[26]  Alex McConnachie,et al.  Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2017, Systematic Reviews.

[27]  Nikolaos A Patsopoulos,et al.  Sensitivity of between-study heterogeneity in meta-analysis: proposed metrics and empirical evaluation. , 2008, International journal of epidemiology.

[28]  L. Lix,et al.  Can authorship bias be detected in meta-analysis? , 2019, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie.

[29]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  p-Curve and Effect Size , 2014, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[30]  Xiao-Hua Zhou,et al.  Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta‐analysis , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[31]  Krista R. Muis,et al.  Calibration to Task Complexity: The Role of Epistemic Cognition , 2020, The Journal of Experimental Education.

[32]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping , 2009, Scientometrics.

[33]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Rejoinder to commentaries on ‘Multivariate meta‐analysis: Potential and promise’ , 2011 .

[34]  Martin Grann,et al.  Authorship Bias in Violence Risk Assessment? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2013, PloS one.

[35]  J. Sánchez-Meca,et al.  Analysis of categorical moderators in mixed‐effects meta‐analysis: Consequences of using pooled versus separate estimates of the residual between‐studies variances , 2017, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[36]  G. Smith,et al.  Meta-analysis: Potentials and promise , 1997, BMJ.

[37]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Science mapping analysis characterizes 235 biases in biomedical research. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[38]  Laura Paglione,et al.  ORCID: a system to uniquely identify researchers , 2012, Learn. Publ..

[39]  Evangelos Kontopantelis,et al.  Publication bias in meta‐analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[40]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings , 2007, Clinical trials.

[41]  Yuan-Mei Liao,et al.  Efficacy of Eye-Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for Patients with Posttraumatic-Stress Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials , 2014, PloS one.

[42]  M. Cheung A Guide to Conducting a Meta-Analysis with Non-Independent Effect Sizes , 2019, Neuropsychology Review.

[43]  Gillian L. Currie,et al.  Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement , 2015, PLoS biology.

[44]  M. A. Kredlow,et al.  Harnessing reconsolidation to weaken fear and appetitive memories: A meta-analysis of post-retrieval extinction effects. , 2016, Psychological bulletin.

[45]  James A. Evans,et al.  Centralized scientific communities are less likely to generate replicable results , 2019, eLife.

[46]  M. Page,et al.  Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review , 2018, BMJ Open.