The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
Meta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining, and reporting
Abstract
Simple formulae have been derived for the accurate computation of sample sizes when the two-sample t-test is used. Required sample sizes may be reduced by taking repeated measures, especially if correlations are about equal. In a trial with two parallel groups, repeated measures may be summarized by a pre-treatment mean and a post-treatment mean. In a cross-over trial measures may be repeated within each treatment period. In case the difference between two independent groups increases in time, individual slopes may be used if the correlation between two measures hardly depends on distance in time between these measures. However, it may be more efficient to use only the first and last measure in the statistical test if correlations strongly depend on time distance.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Two articles recommended that the review question state which study designs will be considered in the review [47, 48].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“Aspects that were frequently mentioned as important to address were the population, exposures or interventions, and outcomes [38–41, 43, 47, 48, 50, 54].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“The majority of articles discussed aspects general to systematic reviews including advantages and limitations of different literature sources and databases, search tools, the importance of identifying unpublished studies, literature searching techniques including how to build a search string and reporting [12, 29, 33–36, 46, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 57, 59–62, 67, 68].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“Five articles gave recommendations about how to assess eligibility: it should be blind [29, 30, 46], independent [29, 33, 46, 48], and performed by two reviewers [29, 30, 33, 48].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“One article recommended using a panel of experts to decide on the inclusion status of a study [48].”
From Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations (2018) · cites this paper as [48]
5 more claims about this paper
Create a free account to see every claim other papers make about this one.
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Metadata
- Authors
- Normand, S.-L. T.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Published
- 1999
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Meta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining, and reporting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19990215)18:3
- The paper
- Normand, S.-L. T. (1999). Meta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining, and reporting. Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19990215)18%3A3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
