Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2004 Sep 22;271(1551):1961–1966. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2828

Cumulative meta-analysis: a new tool for detection of temporal trends and publication bias in ecology.

Roosa Leimu 1, Julia Koricheva 1
PMCID: PMC1691819  PMID: 15347521

Abstract

Temporal changes in the magnitude of research findings have recently been recognized as a general phenomenon in ecology, and have been attributed to the delayed publication of non-significant results and disconfirming evidence. Here we introduce a method of cumulative meta-analysis which allows detection of both temporal trends and publication bias in the ecological literature. To illustrate the application of the method, we used two datasets from recently conducted meta-analyses of studies testing two plant defence theories. Our results revealed three phases in the evolution of the treatment effects. Early studies strongly supported the hypothesis tested, but the magnitude of the effect decreased considerably in later studies. In the latest studies, a trend towards an increase in effect size was observed. In one of the datasets, a cumulative meta-analysis revealed publication bias against studies reporting disconfirming evidence; such studies were published in journals with a lower impact factor compared to studies with results supporting the hypothesis tested. Correlation analysis revealed neither temporal trends nor evidence of publication bias in the datasets analysed. We thus suggest that cumulative meta-analysis should be used as a visual aid to detect temporal trends and publication bias in research findings in ecology in addition to the correlative approach.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (150.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Chalmers I., Haynes B. Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care. BMJ. 1994 Oct 1;309(6958):862–865. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6958.862. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chalmers T. C. Problems induced by meta-analyses. Stat Med. 1991 Jun;10(6):971–980. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780100618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Jennions Michael D., Møller Anders P. Relationships fade with time: a meta-analysis of temporal trends in publication in ecology and evolution. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Jan 7;269(1486):43–48. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1832. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Lau J., Schmid C. H., Chalmers T. C. Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Jan;48(1):45–60. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00106-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Loehle C. Hypothesis testing in ecology: psychological aspects and the importance of theory maturation. Q Rev Biol. 1987 Dec;62(4):397–409. doi: 10.1086/415619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  7. Poulin R. Manipulation of host behaviour by parasites: a weakening paradigm? Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Apr 22;267(1445):787–792. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Song F., Eastwood A. J., Gilbody S., Duley L., Sutton A. J. Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(10):1–115. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES