The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta-analysis: Statistical alchemy for the 21st century
Open accessAbstract
(1) The substances under investigation should be identified in a reproducible manner. (2) Each substance should receive a precise characterization, which indicates its specific distinctiveness. To achieve this goal, scientists search for substances that have been suitably purified, and try to work with mixtures that are homogeneous, not heterogeneous. (3) Comparisons that are done within a study should be fair or unbiased. In a randomized clinical trial, this attribute is called the internal validity of the comparison. (4) What is learned in the research should be suitable for extrapolation and application elsewhere beyond the restrictions of the immediate setting and focus of the research. In randomized trials, this attribute is called external validity.
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
The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?
Hill, A. B. (1965) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/003591576505800503 · Cited by 6,974
Methods for Trend Estimation from Summarized Dose-Response Data, with Applications to Meta-Analysis
Greenland, S., & Longnecker, M. P. (1992) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116237 · Cited by 2,353
An Assessment of Clinically Useful Measures of the Consequences of Treatment
Laupacis, A., Sackett, D. L., & Roberts, R. S. (1988) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198806303182605 · Cited by 1,681
Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research
L'ABBÉ, K. A., DETSKY, A. S., & O'ROURKE, K. (1987) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-224 · Cited by 1,267
Meta‐analysis for 2 × 2 tables: A bayesian approach
Carlin, J. B. (1992) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780110202 · Cited by 164
Cited by
Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42 · Cited by 3,309
A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2009) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2008.00552.x · Cited by 2,569
“This may be the parameter of primary interest: for example, the average efficacy of a treatment may be the most relevant parameter for health care providers (Feinstein, 1995; Light, 1987; Ades et al., 2005).”
BackgroundEllis, P. D. (2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511761676 · Cited by 2,461
Westen, D., Novotny, C. M., & Thompson-Brenner, H. (2004) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.631 · Cited by 1,212
The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial
Kaptchuk, T. J. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00347-4 · Cited by 595
Metadata
- Authors
- Feinstein, A. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1995-01
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 71-79
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2050366546
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 21.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Statistical alchemy for the 21st century. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0895-4356(94)00110-c
- The paper
- Feinstein, A. R. (1995). Meta-analysis: Statistical alchemy for the 21st century. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(94)00110-c
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.
