TY - JOUR A1 - Asendorpf, Jens B. A1 - Conner, Mark A1 - De Fruyt, Filip A1 - De Houwer, Jan A1 - Denissen, Jaap J. A. A1 - Fiedler, Klaus A1 - Fiedler, Susann A1 - Funder, David C. A1 - Kliegl, Reinhold A1 - Nosek, Brian A. A1 - Perugini, Marco A1 - Roberts, Brent W. A1 - Schmitt, Manfred A1 - vanAken, Marcel A. G. A1 - Weber, Hannelore A1 - Wicherts, Jelte M. T1 - Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology JF - European journal of personality N2 - Replicability of findings is at the heart of any empirical science. The aim of this article is to move the current replicability debate in psychology towards concrete recommendations for improvement. We focus on research practices but also offer guidelines for reviewers, editors, journal management, teachers, granting institutions, and university promotion committees, highlighting some of the emerging and existing practical solutions that can facilitate implementation of these recommendations. The challenges for improving replicability in psychological science are systemic. Improvement can occur only if changes are made at many levels of practice, evaluation, and reward. KW - replicability KW - confirmation bias KW - publication bias KW - generalizability KW - research transparency Y1 - 2013 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1919 SN - 0890-2070 VL - 27 IS - 2 SP - 108 EP - 119 PB - Wiley-Blackwell CY - Hoboken ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Hornung, Jessica A1 - Nitezki, Tina A1 - Kraemer, Stephanie T1 - Zieht die Schubladen auf! Ein Appell zur Veröffentlichung von Negativ-Ergebnissen in der tierbasierten Forschung T1 - Pull the drawers open! Call-up to come out with negative results in animal-based research JF - Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift N2 - In der Humanmedizin stellt die sogenannte evidenzbasierte Medizin nach Einführung des Begriffs durch D.L. Sackett (Sackett et al. 1996) und der Gründung des Cochrane Instituts (1972) einen wichtigen Standard in der Aufbereitung und dem Transfer von Ergebnissen aus klinischen Studien in den ärztlichen Alltag dar. Ziel ist es, die Vermittlung von Erkenntnissen aus der Wissenschaft für die praktizierenden Ärzte zu erleichtern. Dabei werden Studienergebnisse in Abhängigkeit von der jeweiligen Fragestellung mittels systematischer Literaturrecherche zusammengetragen und hinsichtlich ihrer Evidenz bewertet, um so dem Arzt ein Instrument an die Hand zu geben, mit dem die gewonnenen Erkenntnisse im Hinblick auf eine konkrete klinische Situation abgewogen und angewendet werden können. In den letzten Jahren wurde allerdings vermehrt Kritik laut, dass der Ausgang vieler klinischer Studien in den Übersichtsarbeiten zu positiv dargestellt werde. Ursächlich hierfür ist der Aspekt des Publikationsbias, also die Beobachtung, dass Autoren wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse mit positivem Ausgang bevorzugt publizieren. Überträgt man diesen Sachverhalt auf die präklinische Forschung, die in weiten Teilen auf der Durchführung tierexperimenteller Untersuchungen beruht, so widerspräche das Zurückhalten negativer Ergebnisse in fataler Weise dem 3R-Konzept von Russel und Burch, da dadurch die Gefahr besteht, dass Forschungsvorhaben wiederholt durchgeführt werden. N2 - In human medicine so-called evidence-based medicine represents an important standard to present results and transfer data out of clinical trials into routine medical care, since it was established by D.L. Sackett (Sackett et al. 1996) and the Cochrane Institute was founded (1972). The overall goal is to facilitate transmission of scientific findings to practicing physicians. Depending on respective research questions, study findings are collected via systematical literature review, followed by regarding its evidence. Thus, the physician will be given an instrument, with which he can asses and apply obtained knowledge in view of specific clinical circumstances. In recent years, however, criticism increased since the outcome of many clinical trials was presented too positive in its review. Publication bias is supposed to be one of the main reasons. This may be explained by the observation that authors prefer publishing scientific findings with significant positive results/ output. Transferring these facts to preclinical research, based to a large extend on animal experimental investigations, withholding of negative results would imply fatal contradiction to the 3R-principles of Russel and Burch (Russel and Burch 1959). KW - publication bias KW - evidence-based medicine KW - 3R-principles KW - Publikationsbias KW - evidenzbasierte Medizin KW - 3R-Prinzip Y1 - 2018 U6 - https://doi.org/10.2376/0005-9366-17093 SN - 0005-9366 SN - 1439-0299 VL - 131 IS - 7-8 SP - 279 EP - 283 PB - Schlütersche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG. CY - Hannover ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Niemeyer, Helen A1 - Musch, Jochen A1 - Pietrowsky, Reinhard T1 - Publication Bias in meta-analyses of the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression JF - Journal of consulting and clinical psychology N2 - Objective: The aim of this study was to assess whether systematic reviews investigating psychotherapeutic interventions for depression are affected by publication bias. Only homogeneous data sets were included, as heterogeneous data sets can distort statistical tests of publication bias. Method: We applied Begg and Mazumdar's adjusted rank correlation test, Egger's regression analysis, and the trim and fill procedure to assess the presence and magnitude of publication bias in all homogeneous data sets of systematic reviews published up to September 2010. Results: Thirty-one data sets reported in 19 meta-analyses fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Significant bias was detected in 5 (16.13%; rank correlation test) and 6 (19.35%; Egger's regression analysis) of these data sets. Applying the trim and fill procedure to amend presumably missing studies rarely changed the assessment of the efficacy of therapeutic interventions, with 2 exceptions. In 1 data set psychotherapy was no longer found to be significantly more efficacious than pharmacotherapy in reducing dropout at posttreatment when publication bias was taken into account. In the 2nd data set, after correcting for publication bias, there was no longer evidence that depressed patients without comorbid personality disorder profited more from psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy than patients with comorbid personality disorder. Conclusions: The results suggest that taken together, psychotherapy research for depression is only marginally affected by the selective reporting of positive outcomes. With 2 notable exceptions, correcting for publication bias did not change the evaluation of the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions. KW - depression KW - publication bias KW - meta-analysis KW - psychotherapy research Y1 - 2013 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031152 SN - 0022-006X VL - 81 IS - 1 SP - 58 EP - 74 PB - American Psychological Association CY - Washington ER -