Die Bedeutung der Interpretation und der Kontrolle von Publikationsverzerrungen in der klinischen Psychologie und Forschung

Eine systematische Analyse (PRISMA)

Autor*innen

  • Julia Pritz-Mirtakis SFU

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15135/2020.8.1.67-83

Abstract

Several reviews conclude that psychological treatments generally have significant positive effects on outcome variables. However, some studies show methodological limitations, suggestive of a strong publication bias in the field. Publication bias in clinical trials appears to have a direct impact on health care provision when only significant results, that may cause false impressions about a treatment’s effectiveness, are published. So, the goal of this review is to answer specific clinical questions about the influence of publishing bias in psychology, which also includes the importance of finding a way to understand and control them Therefore, this systematic review aims to identify relevant studies to address specific clinical questions about the influence of publishing bias, and followed the preferred items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist 2009. In fact, the influence of such bias through abstracts is so evident that researchers have put forward a variety of strategies in order to elucidate, monitor or rectify recurring issues. The results of the present review are indicative of publication bias and the need for a common management strategy endorsed by the scientific community. Finally, implications and benefits for research and clinical practice are discussed, and recommendations for further research are made.

Literaturhinweise

American Psychological Association (2006) Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(4), 271-285.

American Psychological Association (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, 3rd ed.; Washington, DC.

Anderson, S. F.; Kelley, K.; Maxwell, S. E. (2017) Sample-Size Planning for More Accurate Statistical Power: A Method Adjusting Sample Effect Sizes for Publication Bias and Uncertainty. Psychological Science, 28(11).

Berning, C. C.; Weiß, B. (2016) Publication bias in the German social sciences: an application of the caliper test to three top-tier German social science journals. Quality & Quantity, 50(2), 901–917.

Bornstein, S.R. (2009) Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. Lancet, 365, 2125-2136.

Button, K. S.; Bal, L., Clark, A.; Shipley, T. (2016) Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review. BMC Psychology, 4(1), Sp 59.

Chambless, D. L., Sanderson, W. C., Shoham, V., Bennett Johnson, S., Pope, K. S., Crits-Christoph, P.1996; An update on empirically validated therapies. The Clinical Psychologist, 49, 5-18.

Citkowicz, M.; Vevea, J. L. (2017) A parsimonious weight function for modeling publication bias. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 28–41.

Coburn, K. M.; Vevea, J. L. (2015) Publication bias as a function of study characteristics. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 310–330.

Du, H.; Liu, F.; Wang, L. A (2017) Bayesian “fill-in” method for correcting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 22(4), 799–817.

Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., and Minder, C. (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br. Med. J., 315: 629–634.

Evidence-based Approaches. In https://effectivechildtherapy.org

Ferguson, C. J.; Brannick, M. T. (2012) Publication bias in psychological science: prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychological Methods, 17(1), 120–128.

Francis, G. (2012) Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(6), 975–991.

Guan, M.; Vandekerckhove, J. A (2016) Bayesian approach to mitigation of publication bias. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(1), 74–86.

Hofmann SG, Asnaani A, Vonk IJ, Sawyer AT, Fang A. (2012) The Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Review of Meta-analyses. The Cognit 36(5), 427-440.

Institute of Medicine, (2015) ed. Psychological Interventions for mental and substance use disorders: a framework for establishing evidence-based standards. The National Academies Press.

Kühberger, A.; Fritz, A.; Scherndl, (2015) T. Publication bias in psychology: a diagnosis based on the correlation between effect size and sample size. PloS One, 9(9).

Lipsey, M.; Wilson, D. (1993) The efficancy of psychological, educatorial and behavioral Treatment. American Psychologist.

McMain, S., Newman; M., Segal, S.; Derubeis, R. (2015) Cognitive behavioral therapy: current status and future research directions.

McShane, B. B.; Böckenholt, U.; Hansen, K. T. (2016) Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: An Evaluation of Selection Methods and Some Cautionary Notes. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 11(5), 730–749.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, (2009) The PRISMA Group 2009; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.

Nathan, P. & Gorman, J. (2015) A guide to treatments that work, 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Niemeyer, H.; Musch, J.; Pietrowsky, R. (2013) Publication bias in meta-analyses of the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(1), 58–74.

Open Science Collaboration; (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science, Psychology.

Sernberg R. (1997) Career paths in psychology. Washington, APA.

Sham, E.; Smith, T. (2014) Publication bias in studies of an applied behavior-analytic intervention: an initial analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2014, 47(3), 663–678.

Simonsohn, U.; Nelson, L. D.; Simmons, J. P. (2014) P-Curve and Effect Size: Correcting for Publication Bias Using Only Significant Results. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 2014, 9(6), 666–681.

Stewart, LA.; Clarke, MJ. (1995) Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. Stat Med, 2057–2079.

Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures. (1995) Training in and dissemination of empirically validated treatments: Report and recommendations. The Clinical Psychologist , 48, 3-23.

Teater, B. (2010) An introduction to applying social work theories and methods. Basingstoke: Open University Press.

Tetzlaff J.; Tricco A.C. (2007) Sampson M.; Altman DG Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med.

Trower, P.; Casey, A. (1988) Dryden, W. Cognitive-behavioral counselling in action. London, Sage.

Van Bronswijk, S.; Lemmens, L.; Huibers, M.; Arntz, A. & Peeters, F. (2018) The influence of comorbid anxiety on the effectiveness of cognitive therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy for mayor depressive disorder. Journal of affective disorders, 20(1), 1-214.

Vonk, M.E., & Early, T.J. (2009) Cognitive-behavioral therapy. In A.R. Roberts, Social Workers’ Desk Reference, 2nd ed.; New York, Oxford University Press, 242-247.

Winship, C.; Zhuo, X. (2018) Interpreting t-Statistics Under Publication Bias: Rough Rules of Thumb. Journal of Quantitative Criminology.

Veröffentlicht

2020-06-30

Ausgabe

Rubrik

Artikel