Quality of meta-analyses in freshwater ecology: a systematic review

Página do item simplificado
dc.creatorLodi, Sara
dc.creatorGodoy, Bruno Spacek
dc.creatorGonçalves Ortega, Jean Carlo
dc.creatorBini, Luis Mauricio
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-11T14:32:18Z
dc.date.available2023-07-11T14:32:18Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.description.abstract1. Given the increasing use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ecology, their protocols should be closely followed to ensure quality. Several checklists are available to guide researchers towards a high-quality meta-analytic study. Freshwater ecology studies have a tradition of using experimental studies, which provide the ideal data to test hypotheses using meta-analysis. 2. Here, we evaluated the quality of 114 meta-analyses in freshwater ecology and 86 meta-analyses in ecology and evolution for comparative purposes. 3. We found that many studies are still using the term meta-analysis incorrectly and that this error persisted over time. The quality of the studies that did conduct a formal meta-analysis has improved. Thus, we speculate that available guidelines are being effective in improving the quality of meta-analytic studies. Quality was not associated with the impact factor of the journal where the meta-analyses were published or with the average number of citations. 4. In addition to the incorrect use of the term, we found that many studies failed to: report heterogeneity statistics, evaluate temporal changes in effect size, conduct publication bias analyses, address the collinearity among moderators, and provide the data. In general, meta-analyses in ecology and evolution have only a slightly better average score than meta-analyses in freshwater ecology. 5. Although the quality of meta-analyses in freshwater ecology has improved over time, there is much room for improvement. Authors should not label their studies as meta-analyses if these methods were not used. Compliance with checklists should be widely fostered as meta-analyses are increasingly being used to summarise findings in different areas of ecology. Authors, reviewers, and editors should use checklists to improve the quality of meta-analyses in freshwater ecologypt_BR
dc.identifier.citationLODI, Sara; GODOY, Bruno S.; ORTEGA, Jean C. G.; BINI, Luis M. Quality of meta-analyses in freshwater ecology: a systematic review. Freshwater Biology, Hoboken, v. 66, n. 5, p. 803-814, 2021. DOI: 10.1111/fwb.13695. Disponível em: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/fwb.13695. Acesso em: 5 jul. 2023.pt_BR
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/fwb.13695
dc.identifier.issn0046-5070
dc.identifier.issne- 1365-2427
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorio.bc.ufg.br/handle/ri/22945
dc.language.isoengpt_BR
dc.publisher.countryEstados unidospt_BR
dc.publisher.departmentInstituto de Ciências Biológicas - ICB (RMG)pt_BR
dc.rightsAcesso Abertopt_BR
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectChecklistpt_BR
dc.subjectSystematizationpt_BR
dc.subjectLimnologypt_BR
dc.subjectPrisma statementpt_BR
dc.subjectQuantitative reviewpt_BR
dc.titleQuality of meta-analyses in freshwater ecology: a systematic reviewpt_BR
dc.typeArtigopt_BR

Arquivos

Pacote Original
Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Nome:
Artigo - Sara Lodi - 2021.pdf
Tamanho:
736.73 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descrição:
Baixar
Licença do Pacote
Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Nome:
license.txt
Tamanho:
1.71 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descrição:
Baixar

Coleções

ICB - Artigos publicados em periódicos