Spurious precision in meta-analysis, published in Nature Communications

26 October 2025  ·  Zuzana Irsova, Pedro Bom, Tomas Havranek, Heiko Rachinger  ·  meta-analysis methods / publication bias

First published on LinkedIn, 26 October 2025. Archived with the rest of our writing at /komentare/posts/2025-10-26-spurious-precision-nature-communications/.

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

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

đź“„ Paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63261-0

đź“° Blog: https://communities.springernature.com/posts/spurious-precision-in-meta-analysis-of-observational-research

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

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.

All notes  ·  More meta from Prague