Bio

Alejandro completed his PhD in Psychology at the University of Murcia, Spain, in 2024. His doctoral research focused on assessing transparency and risk of bias in psychology meta-analyses. Prior to this, he obtained an MSc in Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience from the University of Granada, Spain. In addition to evaluating methodological practices in evidence synthesis and empirical studies, he is interested in a wide range of meta-scientific questions, such as how science self-corrects and how research should be evaluated.

Stanford Advisors

Contact

  • Academic
    asandlen@stanford.edu
    University - Scholar Department: School of Medicine Position: Postdoctoral Scholar

Additional Info

2025-26 Courses

All Publications

  • Preregistration of Psychology Meta-Analyses: A Cross-Sectional Study of Prevalence and Practice ADVANCES IN METHODS AND PRACTICES IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Sandoval-Lentisco, A., Tortajada, M., Lopez-Nicolas, R., Lopez-Lopez, J. A., Wagenmakers, E. J., Sanchez-Meca, J., Hardwicke, T. E. 2025; 8 (1)

    View details for DOI 10.1177/25152459241300113

    View details for Web of Science ID 001420458900001

  • Transparency in Cognitive Training Meta-analyses: A Meta-review NEUROPSYCHOLOGY REVIEW Sandoval-Lentisco, A., Lopez-Nicolas, R., Tortajada, M., Lopez-Lopez, J., Sanchez-Meca, J. 2025; 35 (2): 301-318

    Abstract

    Meta-analyses often present flexibility regarding their inclusion criteria, outcomes of interest, statistical analyses, and assessments of the primary studies. For this reason, it is necessary to transparently report all the information that could impact the results. In this meta-review, we aimed to assess the transparency of meta-analyses that examined the benefits of cognitive training, given the ongoing controversy that exists in this field. Ninety-seven meta-analytic reviews were included, which examined a wide range of populations with different clinical conditions and ages. Regarding the reporting, information about the search of the studies, screening procedure, or data collection was detailed by most reviews. However, authors usually failed to report other aspects such as the specific meta-analytic parameters, the formula used to compute the effect sizes, or the data from primary studies that were used to compute the effect sizes. Although some of these practices have improved over the years, others remained the same. Moreover, examining the eligibility criteria of the reviews revealed a great heterogeneity in aspects such as the training duration, age cut-offs, or study designs that were considered. Preregistered meta-analyses often specified poorly how they would deal with the multiplicity of data or assess publication bias in their protocols, and some contained non-disclosed deviations in their eligibility criteria or outcomes of interests. The findings shown here, although they do not question the benefits of cognitive training, illustrate important aspects that future reviews must consider.

    View details for DOI 10.1007/s11065-024-09638-2

    View details for Web of Science ID 001205247600002

    View details for PubMedID 38639881

    View details for PubMedCentralID PMC12328470

  • Reproducibility of Published Meta-Analyses on Clinical-Psychological Interventions ADVANCES IN METHODS AND PRACTICES IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Lopez-Nicolas, R., Lakens, D., Lopez-Lopez, J. A., Rubio-Aparicio, M., Sandoval-Lentisco, A., Lopez-Ibanez, C., Blazquez-Rincon, D., Sanchez-Meca, J. 2024; 7 (1)

    View details for DOI 10.1177/25152459231202929

    View details for Web of Science ID 001156946300001

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7876-0101