Abstract
Results of meta-analyses are regarded as the highest level of evidence. A statistically non-significant effect size from a meta-analysis is typically considered true negative even in the presence of a statistically significant signal in individual studies, presumed to be false positive. Here we provide examples from neuroimaging, genetics and psychopharmacology of why meta-analyses may frequently yield false negative results from true positive findings. This may happen in situations when individual studies report findings in opposing directions, the sum of which yields a non-significant overall effect size. Such non-significant meta-analyses, which show statistical heterogeneity and include studies with opposing effect sizes do not provide an accurate estimate of the overall effect and may have lower heuristic value than individual studies. Over reliance on such meta-analyses may falsely identify certain potentially fruitful research avenues as blind alleys.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1307-1309 |
| Number of pages | 3 |
| Journal | European Neuropsychopharmacology |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue number | 10 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Oct 2013 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Grants 103703 and 106469 ), Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation and Dalhousie Clinical Research Scholarship to Dr. Hajek. The granting agencies had no further role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.
ASJC Scopus Subject Areas
- Pharmacology
- Neurology
- Clinical Neurology
- Psychiatry and Mental health
- Biological Psychiatry
- Pharmacology (medical)
PubMed: MeSH publication types
- Journal Article
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
