Cited by 12Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsEvaluation and Performance AssessmentHealth Sciences Research and Education

Synthesizing the Evidence

Mark Patrick Petticrew, Helen M Roberts·2006·Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences

Abstract

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Narrative Synthesis of Quantitative Studies Narrative Synthesis in Three Steps Best Evidence Synthesis (BES) Vote Counting Cross-Design Synthesis Best Available Evidence Triangulation in Systematic Reviews Reviewing Complex Evidence Synthesizing Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research Meta-Analysis: The Statistical Synthesis of Quantitative Studies Forest Plots Software: Statistical Packages for Meta-Analysis Criticisms of Meta-Analysis The Meta-Analytic Sausage Machine Improving Research Synthesis

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/9780470754887.ch6

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • There is considerable academic debate regarding the appropriateness of meta-analysis in the context of clinical heterogeneity.

    “There is considerable academic debate regarding the appropriateness of meta-analysis in the context of such clinical heterogeneity [43,44].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Petticrew, M. P., & Roberts, H. M.
Venue
Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-01
Pages
164-214
OpenAlex
W1526409901
Cited by
12
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
Type
other
Language
en
Open access
closed
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
evidence synthesis, narrative synthesis, best evidence synthesis, vote counting, best evidence, triangulation, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, forest plots, qualitative evidence synthesis

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