Introduction to Meta‐Analysis
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
The risk of publication bias in this meta-analysis appears to be limited.
“The risk of publication bias appears to be limited.”
From Learning a Language Through Reading: A Meta-analysis of Studies on the Effects of Extensive Reading on Second and Foreign Language Learning (2025) · cites this paper as Borenstein et al., 2021
The three-level model weighted effect sizes by variance across participants and did not account for variation in measurement error.
“As is typical for meta-analyses43, in our three-level model, we weighted effect sizes as a function of their variance across participants, so we did not account for this other source of variation in measurement.”
From When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [43]
The prediction interval for true effect sizes is -0.598 to 2.350, and 95% of all comparable populations have genuine effect sizes in this interval.
“We can estimate the prediction interval of -0.598 to 2.350 if we assume that the true effects are normally distributed in (d units).The true ES in 95% of all comparable populations falls within this interval”
From A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education (2026) · cites this paper as Borenstein et al., 2021
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 9,799
- Authors
- Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R.
- Affiliations
- Biostat (United States) (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- Medical Research Council (GB)
- Baruch College (US)
- Venue
- Wiley eBooks
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-05-07
- OpenAlex
- W71228264
- Cited by
- 9,799
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 604 · 2025: 568 · 2024: 451 · 2023: 303 · 2022: 208 · 2021: 841 · 2020: 982 · 2019: 838 · 2018: 689 · 2017: 750 · 2016: 734 · 2015: 743 · 2014: 632 · 2013: 522 · 2012: 407
- FWCI
- 108.90
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Wiley eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- meta-analysis, heterogeneity, effect size
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
