Several limitations of our analytic approach may constrain the conclusions we can draw from this review. First, although techniques have been developed to adjust estimates of effect size for error in the measurement of study variables (Schmidt, 2010), reliability data for too many of the measures included in this meta-analysis was lacking, precluding this adjustment. The mean effect sizes reported above may therefore represent lower-bound estimates of differences in subjective response (Schmidt, 2010). Second, like all reviews, this meta-analysis was potentially subject to publication bias. Consistent with the competing theories and nontrivial number of null effects found in included studies, however, tests of publication bias suggested that the primary findings reported here, including the overall FH difference and the stimulation and sedation differences in comparisons for typical consumption, were robust to any potential bias. Finally, we were only able to include a subset of all relevant alcohol-challenge studies identified in our literature search. We do not believe that this restriction impaired our ability to draw valid conclusions for two reasons. First, we were ultimately able to include 73% of eligible
