Ethical issues in the conduct and reporting of meta-analysis

Handbook of Ethics in Quantitative Methodology

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 417-443

  Cooper, Harris ^a   Dent, Amy ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84055205091     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (21)

1. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. New York: Author.
2. American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3. APA Publication and Communication Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology:Why do we need them? What might they be? American Psychologist, 63, 839-851.
4. Brown, B. L., & Hedges, D. (2009). Use and misuse of quantitative methods: Data collection, calculation, and presentation. In D. M. Mertens & P. E. Ginsberg (Eds.), The handbook of social research ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
6. Cook, D. J., Sackett, D. L., & Spitzer, W. O. (1995). Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trails in health care from the Potsdam consultation on meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48, 167-171.
7. Cooper, H., DeNeve, K., & Charlton, K. (2001). Finding the missing science: The fate of studies submitted for review by a human subjects committee. Psychological Methods, 2, 447-452.
8. Cooper, H., & Patall, E. A. (2009). The relative benefits of meta-analysis using individual participant data and aggregate data. Psychological Methods, 14, 165-176.
9. Cooper, H. M. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Gleser, L. J., & Olkin, I. (2009). Stochastically dependent effect sizes. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 357-376). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
11. Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed and random effects models in metaanalysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486-504.
12. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181-1209.
13. Merriam Webster Online. (2007). Merriam Webster online. Retrieved from http:// www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
14. Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D., for the QUOROM group. (1999). Improving the quality of reporting of metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet, 354, 1896-1900.
15. Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7): e1000097.
16. National Institutes of Health. (2003). Final NIH statement on sharing research data. Retrieved from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/ not-od-03-032.html
17. Overton, R. C. (1998). A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychological Methods, 3, 354-379.
18. Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in metaanalysis:Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Oxford, UK: Wiley.
19. Schmidt, F. L., On, I., & Hayes, T. (2009). Fixed vs. random models in meta-analysis:Model properties and comparison of differences in results. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 97-128.
20. Stroup, D. F., Berlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., Olkin, I., Williamson, G. D., Rennie, D.,... Thancker, S. B. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, 2008-2012.
21. Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2008). A systematic and transparent approach for assessing the methodological quality of intervention effectiveness research:The Study Design and Implementation Assessment Device (Study DIAD). Psychological Methods, 13, 130-149.