🔎 New in Nature Communications: “Spurious precision in meta-analysis of observational research.”

26 October 2025Zuzana HavránkováLinkedIn

Sometimes studies appear too precise because their reported uncertainty reflects method choices rather than real evidence strength. This can mislead meta-analyses.

We introduce MAIVE, a simple way to detect and correct such bias, including publication bias and p-hacking.

🖥️ Try it in your browser (free, no coding): https://www.easymeta.org

📄 Paper: https://lnkd.in/eFfrP6H2

📰 Blog: https://lnkd.in/ejkgbU6X

— Kudos to my great co-authors Pedro Bom, Tomas Havranek, and Heiko Rachinger

#metaanalysis #researchmethods #OpenScience #NatureCommunications

Two funnel plots side by side from the Nature Communications paper. In (a), selection on estimates, the surviving studies sit above the t=1.96 line and the effect size is inflated. In (b), selection on standard errors, the funnel is equally asymmetric but the effect size is not inflated. Both plot standard errors against estimates.

Originally posted on LinkedIn. Archived in full among all posts.