How to deal with the "decline effect"?

Question

How do we reliably identify the decline effect and bring its implications to bear on existing Q&A on this site?

I would think maybe the answer is almost too obvious: write an updated answer. But then again, maybe there's more to it: how to raise awareness where applicable?

This question was prompted from reading the answer in this post: May I cite a single article? It says more weight should be given to "multiple papers" and "reproductions of experiments". This is correct because in traditional science this is necessary. However, the problem is that some studies/papers/researchers have possibly not adhered to the scientific method strictly enough, or that new evidence or results have come along (thus pushing an "established" study back into the more appropriate category of "exploratory experiments" or mere "preliminary findings").

Answer 1

The decline effect is largely due to preliminary studies not being as well controlled as later studies.

How do we reliably identify the decline effect

There is no need to. Use the best evidence as of today. It doesn't matter what the best evidence was 10 years ago. I think the hierarchy of evidence implicitly takes into account the decline effect by preferring better controlled studies and analyses of the entire body of evidence over preliminary studies and individual studies.

I would think maybe the answer is almost too obvious: write an updated answer. But then again, maybe there's more to it: how to raise awareness where applicable?

Just use the best evidence.

However, the problem is that some studies/papers/researchers have possibly not adhered to the scientific method strictly enough, or that new evidence or results have come along (thus pushing an "established" study back into the more appropriate category of "exploratory experiments" or mere "preliminary findings").

Systematic reviews take this into account.