A Guide to Conducting a Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Meta-analysis is widely accepted as the preferred method to synthesize research findings in various disciplines. This paper provides an introduction to when and how to conduct a meta-analysis. Several practical questions, such as advantages of meta-analysis over conventional narrative review and the number of studies required for a meta-analysis, are addressed. Common meta-analytic models are then introduced. An artificial dataset is used to illustrate how a meta-analysis is conducted in several software packages. The paper concludes with some common pitfalls of meta-analysis and their solutions. The primary goal of this paper is to provide a summary background to readers who would like to conduct their first meta-analytic study.
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 approach of neuroimaging meta-analysis provides an objective method for producing higher-level evidence-based reliable findings on neural mechanisms.
“The approach of neuroimaging meta-analysis provides an objective method for producing higher-level evidence-based reliable findings on its neural mechanisms (Cheung & Vijayakumar, 2016).”
From Overlapping and differential neuropharmacological mechanisms of stimulants and nonstimulants for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A comparative neuroimaging analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Cheung & Vijayakumar, 2016
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 73 · Cited by 239
- Authors
- Cheung, M. W.-L., & Vijayakumar, R.
- Affiliations
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Cheung, Mike W.-L.
- ORCID
- Cheung, Mike W.-L.
- Venue
- Neuropsychology Review
- Published
- 2016-05-21
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 121-128
- ISSN
- 1040-7308 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6660
- OpenAlex
- W2402600147
- Cited by
- 239
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 1.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Neuropsychology Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Academic Research Fund Tier 1 from the Ministry of Education, Singapore (FY2013-FRC5-002)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Keywords
- meta-analysis, meta-analysis software, evidence synthesis
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Software, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Publication Bias
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
