J.P.T. Higgins's scientific contributions

... The two authors in the clinical trial studies followed the guidelines of the "Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions(Version 5.1.0). 24 With an adaptation of the Cochrane Handbook bias checking tool, the authors evaluated and considered the results as follows: it was considered satisfactory and of possible allocation when a given study reached " ≥4" domains of table 8.5.d (handbook-5-1.cochrane), with a low bias level. It is worth noting that in order to be selected, a given study should present a low risk of bias, preferably in domains six and seven, that is, a low level of bias superiority in four or more domains, provided that the sixth and seventh domains are included. ...

... The researchers used a meta-analysis of the obtained studies to determine the effectiveness of BBL, as a pedagogy, on the level of students conceptual understanding. Through meta-analysis, the researchers systematically synthesized the quantitative findings from previous research studies based on the objectives of the present research and the data available (Borenstein et al., 2021). ...

... Dicho modelo asume que cada tamaño del efecto se pondera sobre la base del inverso de su varianza, que es la suma de las varianzas intraestudio e interestudio. La varianza intraestudio se calculó utilizando el método de momentos de DerSimonian y Laird 16 . Se construyó un gráfico de bosque, calculándose el tamaño del efecto medio con su intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC del 95%). ...

... The effect size of this meta-analysis was the standardized mean difference (Hedges's g) between the experimental and control conditions on the posttest. We chose the effect size of Hedges's g over Cohen's d because it corrected for small sample sizes (Borenstein et al., 2009). According to Cohen (1988), values of 0.8, 0.5, and 0.2 represented large, medium, and small effect sizes, respectively. ...

... Generally, I 2 is the proportion of errors due to effect size variation across studies plus sampling error while τ 2 is a variation due to sampling error. We conducted a subgroup analysis by considering different study characteristics such as sample size [large or small], study regions [Eastern, Western, or Southern Africa], intervention [mHealth only or mHealth plus additional support], and study design [RCT, cluster RCT or quasi] to account for the variabilities [48]. ...

... For most effect sizes included, we directly extracted and coded the respective correlation coefficients. Only two studies reported mean differences (Lambert et al., 2012;Patrick, 2007), which we converted to correlation coefficients (Borenstein et al., 2009a;Thalheimer & Cook, 2002). Afterwards, we recoded effect sizes for the sake of interpretability so that positive correlations indicated that higher job satisfaction was associated with higher professional performance. ...

... Furthermore, we considered dependencies that emerged in the data of the primary studies before meta-analytic aggregation of effect sizes. Including multiple effect sizes based on the same sample might bias standard errors and distort the overall results of a meta-analysis (Borenstein et al., 2009b; Hunter composite score, following the recommendations of Hunter and Schmidt (2004, pp. 435-439). ...

... The program Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA), Version 3.3.070 (Borenstein et al., 2014), was employed to calculate weighted effect sizes, assess heterogeneity, perform moderator analysis, execute the meta-regression analysis, conduct sensitivity analysis, and evaluate publication bias. ...

... So, it requires a heterogeneity value to see the diversity between the analyzed studies. A meta-analysis study can be good if it has a heterogeneity value close to 100% [34]. The higher the heterogeneity value between studies, the more heterogeneous and can represent the diversity of the data for each analysis. ...

... Researchers who report a synthesis and heterogeneity effect are missing the crucial synthesis. 35 The results of our meta-analysis confirmed that a relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the incidence of mesothelioma could be assessed. In addition, differences in the distribution of data were highlighted between the studies with radiotherapy exposure (North America for the most part) and those studying occupational exposures (United Kingdom, France, and Australia). ...