The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Recent developments in meta‐analysis
Open accessAbstract
The art and science of meta‐analysis, the combination of results from multiple independent studies, is now more than a century old. In the last 30 years, however, as the need for medical research and clinical practice to be based on the totality of relevant and sound evidence has been increasingly recognized, the impact of meta‐analysis has grown enormously. In this paper, we review highlights of recent developments in meta‐analysis in medical research. We outline in particular how emphasis has been placed on (i) heterogeneity and random‐effects analyses; (ii) special consideration in different areas of application; (iii) assessing bias within and across studies; and (iv) extension of ideas to complex evidence synthesis. We conclude the paper with some remarks on ongoing challenges and possible directions for the future. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Self-citationMeta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Self-citationOperating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease
(1959) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/22.4.719 · Cited by 14,689
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702 · cited 1×
“With the ever-expanding literature of medical research studies, and the suggestion that the majority of such findings may be false [6], the need for critical evaluations and considered syntheses of multiple studies is an easy case to make.”
BackgroundFunnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., & Egger, M. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00377-8 · Cited by 3,779
Cited by
Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
Tacconelli, E. (2010) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(10)70065-7 · Cited by 3,245
Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: A meta-regression.
Michie, S., Abraham, C., Whittington, C., McAteer, J., & Gupta, S. (2009) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0016136 · Cited by 2,229
Hayes, S. A., & Watson, S. L. (2013) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1604-y · Cited by 1,847
Salanti, G. (2012) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1037 · Cited by 1,729
Quantifying publication bias in meta-analysis
Lin, L., & Chu, H. (2018) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/biom.12817 · Cited by 1,674
Metadata
- Authors
- Sutton, A. J., & Higgins, J. P. T.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-06-25
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 625-650
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2001855995
- Cited by
- 590
- References
- 67
- FWCI
- 28.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Recent developments in meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sim.2934
- The paper
- Sutton, A. J., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2008). Recent developments in meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2934
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.
