IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/kwe94_v2.html

Effect of Emphasizing Methodological Limitations of Primary Studies in a Systematic Review Summary: Findings from Two Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Beaulieu-Guay, Louis-Robert
  • Béchard, Benoît
  • Ouimet, Mathieu
  • Claveau, François
  • Montpetit, Éric

Abstract

Background: Various organizations expend resources to communicate the findings of systematic reviews to non-specialist audiences, such as policymakers and the general public. The Campbell Collaboration does so with its plain language summaries, which aim to communicate complex methodological information in an accessible manner. However, the effectiveness of such summaries in communicating the overall quality of the primary studies included in a systematic review remains understudied. Objectives: This study aims to assess how the design of a systematic review summary affects readers' perception of methodological quality of primary studies, their perception of the evidence's definitiveness and their attitudes towards the policy intervention discussed in the review. Data and Methods: Using a web-based experimental design, two studies were conducted to examine how various presentation formats, including the emphasis on methodological limitations and the use of images, influence readers’ perceptions of information presented in a systematic review summary. Results: Emphasizing methodological limitations significantly reduces readers' perception of the quality of the methods used in the studies included in a systematic review summary. Yet, highlighting methodological limitations does not influence people's perception of the definitiveness of the review findings or their attitude toward related policies. Furthermore, removing the images from the summary’s standard design appears to have minimal effect on how readers interpret information about methodological limitations. Conclusions: Modifications to the traditional summary design can amplify the awareness of laypeople and civil servants regarding methodological limitations in the scientific evidence. However, their way of processing information about these methodological limitations does not automatically propagate the change in attitude regarding methods to a change in attitudes regarding study results and policy options.

Suggested Citation

  • Beaulieu-Guay, Louis-Robert & Béchard, Benoît & Ouimet, Mathieu & Claveau, François & Montpetit, Éric, 2026. "Effect of Emphasizing Methodological Limitations of Primary Studies in a Systematic Review Summary: Findings from Two Randomized Controlled Trials," SocArXiv kwe94_v2, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:kwe94_v2
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/kwe94_v2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/69c6f23f06e792b71773fe87/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/kwe94_v2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P. A. Ioannidis & T. D. Stanley & Hristos Doucouliagos, 2017. "The Power of Bias in Economics Research," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 236-265, October.
    2. Diana Arnautu & Christian Dagenais, 2021. "Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Pierre-Olivier Bédard & Mathieu Ouimet, 2012. "Cognizance and Consultation of Randomized Controlled Trials among Ministerial Policy Analysts," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(5), pages 625-644, September.
    4. Thomson, H., 2013. "Improving utility of evidence synthesis for healthy public policy: The three Rs (relevance, rigor, and readability [and resources])," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(8), pages 17-23.
    5. Nadia Rehman & Xiao Huang & Amir Mahmood & Hafiz Muhammad Ihsan Zafeer & Nhelbourne Kalim Mohammad, 2025. "Emerging trends and effective strategies in STEM teacher professional development: A systematic review," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-23, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Olivier Bargain & Victor Stephane & Jérôme Valette, 2022. "Another brick in the wall. Immigration and electoral preferences: Direct evidence from state ballots," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 1452-1477, November.
    2. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.
    3. Erik Johannesson & James A. Ohlson & Sophia Weihuan Zhai, 2024. "The explanatory power of explanatory variables," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 3053-3083, December.
    4. Josef C. Brada & Ichiro Iwasaki, 2022. "The Effect of Target-Country Institutions on Cross-Border Merger and Acquisition Activity: A Quantitative Literature Survey," Econometric Research in Finance, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis, vol. 7(1), pages 1-70.
    5. Holla,Alaka & Bendini,Maria Magdalena & Dinarte Diaz,Lelys Ileana & Trako,Iva, 2021. "Is Investment in Preprimary Education Too Low ? Lessons from (Quasi) ExperimentalEvidence across Countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9723, The World Bank.
    6. Jules Gazeaud & Victor Stephane, 2023. "Productive Workfare? Evidence from Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(1), pages 265-290, January.
    7. Jennifer Elena Feichtmayer & Klaus Gründler, 2021. "Global Evidence on Misperceptions and Preferences for Redistribution," CESifo Working Paper Series 9381, CESifo.
    8. Stanley, T. D. & Doucouliagos, Chris, 2019. "Practical Significance, Meta-Analysis and the Credibility of Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 12458, IZA Network @ LISER.
    9. Philipp Heimberger, 2022. "Does economic globalisation promote economic growth? A meta‐analysis," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(6), pages 1690-1712, June.
    10. Anna Sokolova, 2023. "Marginal Propensity to Consume and Unemployment: a Meta-analysis," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 51, pages 813-846, December.
    11. Assmann, Daisy & Ehrl, Philipp, 2021. "Individualistic culture and entrepreneurial opportunities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 1248-1268.
    12. Nick Huntington‐Klein & Andreu Arenas & Emily Beam & Marco Bertoni & Jeffrey R. Bloem & Pralhad Burli & Naibin Chen & Paul Grieco & Godwin Ekpe & Todd Pugatch & Martin Saavedra & Yaniv Stopnitzky, 2021. "The influence of hidden researcher decisions in applied microeconomics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(3), pages 944-960, July.
    13. Christopher Snyder & Ran Zhuo, 2018. "Sniff Tests as a Screen in the Publication Process: Throwing out the Wheat with the Chaff," NBER Working Papers 25058, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Ferman, Bruno & Finamor, Lucas, 2025. "There must be an error here! Experimental evidence on coding errors' biases," I4R Discussion Paper Series 266, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    15. Neves, Pedro Cunha & Afonso, Oscar & Silva, Diana & Sochirca, Elena, 2021. "The link between intellectual property rights, innovation, and growth: A meta-analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 196-209.
    16. Vigren, Andreas & Pyddoke, Roger, 2020. "The impact on bus ridership of passenger incentive contracts in public transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 144-159.
    17. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2020. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics (RM/19/029-revised-)," Research Memorandum 014, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    18. Doucouliagos, Hristos & Paldam, Martin & Stanley, T.D., 2018. "Skating on thin evidence: Implications for public policy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 16-25.
    19. Gechert, Sebastian & Heimberger, Philipp, 2022. "Do corporate tax cuts boost economic growth?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    20. Dimos, Christos & Pugh, Geoff & Hisarciklilar, Mehtap & Talam, Ema & Jackson, Ian, 2022. "The relative effectiveness of R&D tax credits and R&D subsidies: A comparative meta-regression analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:kwe94_v2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.