Just finished a highly productive two-hour meeting with our volunteer scientists, despite it being Easter. What a phenomenal group of people to work with! We cannot thank you enough for your contributions!
Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
#SystematicReview
1 post1 participant0 posts today
When we talk about grey literature, do we also consider grey information and grey data? I usually define it as conference papers, dissertations, and preprints only.
A worthwhile read on this topic: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0337-y
In 1993, H. Schwabl published in @PNASNews a seminal paper: “Yolk [as] a source of maternal testosterone for developing birds”
This was the first study proposing a link between maternal egg hormones and fitness.
Our preregistered #systematicreview & #metaanalysis in Ecology Letters synthesises 438 effects from 57 studies on 19 wild 
species to test if & how egg hormones relate to fitness
https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.70100
Data & Code https://github.com/ASanchez-Tojar/meta-analysis_egg_hormones_and_fitness
Pre-registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KU47W
What a week talking all meta!!!
Thank you to @physaliacourses2 for inviting us to give a 5-day (20h) workshop, to the 20 magnificent participants worldwide for their insightful questions and positive vibes, and to @shreyadimri for her invaluable support! #metaanalysis #systematicreview
Happy to share our new #preprint—the first-ever #SystematicReview on global catastrophic risk. 
We explores the growing field of #GlobalCatastrophicRisk and #ExistentialRisk, which focus on global threats like #NuclearWar. This bibliometric analysis shows how the field has expanded and diversified over the past 20 years and has made substantial contributions to understanding and preparing for #humanity's biggest risks.
Continued thread
12/
Examples of paths for #FakeScience to manipulate evidence (in future, potentially, maybe even in a deliberate malicious way): their impact on #SystematicReview studies [7]
There is "a growing number of systematic review authors who have lost faith in the evidence base they depend on".
"The size of the problem is not clear, but a manuscript posted to the Center for Open Science’s OSF preprint server in September suggests up to one in seven published papers are fabricated or falsified"
Continued thread
Our preregistered #systematicreview & #metaanalysis, led by L. Mentesana, synthesizes 443 effects from 57 studies across 19 wild species to test the extent to which an increase in
hormones relates to fitness
Preregistration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KU47W https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.29.620852
Today is the day. We are hosting the workshop at Bielefeld University
"The #EvidenceSynthesis Toolkit: Perspectives from Philosophy and Biology"
Unmatchable list of speakers
More at: https://shorturl.at/4OP1V
Supported by DFG, NC3, JICE InChangE #systematicreview #metaanalysis
What are the benefits and risks of different treatments that could delay or slow the progression of progressive #MultipleSclerosis?
This #SystematicReview looked at the evidence from 23 #MS studies involving 10,167 people.
Read the full review and plain language summary in the #CochraneLibrary -
https://buff.ly/3MPIsEQ
For a blog post explaining some of the background of the collaboration that went into this work: https://neurontosomething.wordpress.com/2024/07/31/multiple-sclerosis-global-health-and-access-to-essential-healthcare/
Excited to share this #preprint of a #SystematicReview of Relationship Between #ClimateAnxiety and Environmentally Relevant Behaviours
The review was led by Alice Roberts as part of her #PhD/#DClinPsy
#EnvironmentalPsychology #ClimateDistress #ClimateChange
OSF
A Systematic Review of the Relationship Between Climate Anxiety and Environmentally Relevant Behaviours
Background: The notion of ‘climate anxiety’ has received increasing attention in recent years. There is however inconsistency in the literature regarding associations with environmentally relevant behaviours (ERBs), concerning behaviours which helo mitigate against climate change. This systematic review sought to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise findings from studies exploring this association.
Methods: Peer-reviewed, empirical studies using quantitative approaches to explore climate anxiety and associations with various ‘public’ and ‘private’ sphere ERBs were the focus of this review. Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and ERIC databases were searched in May 2023. The Quality of Survey Studies in Psychology (Q-SSP) quality assessment checklist was used to assess study quality. A narrative synthesis grouped findings according to similarities in conceptualisations and measurement approaches.
Results: 24 studies were reviewed, including over 35,000 participants. Most studies were considered of acceptable quality. Despite representation from 40 countries, participants were largely from predominantly individualistic and Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) cultures, with notable gender, sex and age biases among samples. Positive associations were frequently observed between climate anxiety and ERBs. Some studies reported non-significant associations, while negative associations were less common. Stronger associations were observed in relation to: (i) less severe and functionally impairing climate anxiety, (ii) public sphere ERBs, (iii) behavioural intentions and willingness as compared to self-reported behaviours, (iv) composite scores on measures, (v) WEIRD and individualistic cultural orientations. Stronger associations were observed when correlation analyses were used, while inferential approaches incorporating other variables revealed less consistent and more nuanced findings.
Discussion: Results indicate climate anxiety may, for many, be associated with ERBs. Methodological approaches, individual and systemic factors may, however, influence this relationship. While this review is not without limitations, findings may contribute to a broader, complex and multifaceted picture regarding the adaptive versus maladaptive nature of climate anxiety.
Hosted on the Open Science Framework
I am on a roll today. Don't write: "We searched in two databases: PubMed and Web of Science." WoS is not a database but a platform for accessing multiple databases. The one typically used is the Core Collection. But one can also search MEDLINE via WoS, which is (almost) the same as PubMed. So specify which database(s) you searched via WoS (e.g., "We searched PubMed and the Web of Science Core Collection").
Don't write: "We conducted our meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines". PRISMA is a *reporting* guideline, not a guideline for *conducting* a MA. Yes, these two things are interlinked (if one reports certain things, then one has to do these things), but it is more accurate to write: "We report the results of our meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines".
In this #SystematicReview published in #EuropeanRadiology, Jisun Hwang et al. estimated the pooled prevalence and progression of interstitial lung abnormalities (ILAs). They find the prevalence of ILAs was approximately 9.7%.
Critical Review: #ArtificialIntelligence for #MRI stroke detection. (Jonas Asgaard Bojsen et al.)
This #SystematicReview from Feng Pan et al. found that enhancing spatial resolution can facilitate the clinical translation of deuterium metabolic imaging (DMI), a promising non-invasive technique, showing promise for studying in vivo energetic metabolism.
How do you conduct a #SystematicReview? What are the requirements, and what types of reviews exist? What is the best search strategy for you?
Our information specialist Ina Vrolijk helps researchers find their way through the jungle of databases and search strings.
https://www.rug.nl/library/news/240621-meet-ina-vrolijk
Our online guide provides hands-on tips: https://libguides.rug.nl/systematic-reviews
Continued thread
Our #systematicreview identified 47 papers (k = 180 estimates) across 21 species (
) and found that, on average, indirect genetic effects, though small, matter.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.17.594196
data & code: https://github.com/ASanchez-Tojar/meta-analysis_IGEs
New publication is out:
Developing countries can adapt to climate change effectively using nature-based solutions
Springer Nature: Communications Earth & Environment volume 5, Article number: 214 (2024)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01356-0
--
#Evidence #SystematicReview #ClimateChangeAdaptation #Adaptation #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #Climate #Coast #Agriculture #NatureBasedSolutions #NatureBased #NbS #DevelopingCountries #SocialRiskManagement
NatureDeveloping countries can adapt to climate change effectively using nature-based solutions - Communications Earth & EnvironmentNature-based solutions can reduce the immediate risks and impacts of climate change in coastal areas and increase adaptive capacity in the agricultural sector in low- and middle-income countries, according to a systematic review of 363 empirical studies.
shocking evidence of epidemic of #fraud in #biomedical science
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.02.13.580196v1.full
#researchintegrity #systematicReview
bioRxiv · Fraudulent studies are undermining the reliability of systematic reviews – a study of the prevalence of problematic images in preclinical studies of depressionSystematic reviews are considered by many to constitute the highest level of scientific evidence. A caveat is that the methods used in a systematic review – combining information from multiple studies – are predicated on all of the reports being truthful. Currently, we do not know how frequent fraudulent studies are in systematic reviews, or how they affect the resulting evidence base. For a systematic review of preclinical studies of depression, we found that potentially fraudulent studies were not only common but also that they biased the findings of the review. In a sample of 1,035 studies, we found that 19 % of peer-reviewed reports displayed data in the form of problematic images. In a majority of the cases, images had been altered or recycled in a way that makes us suspect foul play. Making things worse, these studies reported larger effect sizes, on average, than did studies where we did not identify problems. Counter to commonly held beliefs, reports with problematic images were not cited less or published in lower-impact journals, nor were their authors isolated to any specific geographic area. The sheer prevalence of problematic studies, and the fact that we could not find a simple pattern for identifying them, undermines the validity of systematic reviews within our research field. We suspect that this is symptomatic of a broader problem that needs immediate addressing.
### Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Working on a #SystematicReview and #metaanalysis 
I have a basic problem with 'esc' package
When I want convert (un)standardized beta to r, I can't use vectors with esc_beta or esc_B , but it is ok if I convert beta in d or g.
I want convert numerous Beta in r.
Ideas ? 