Cited by 1,057Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyDelphi Technique in Research

Fixed or random effects meta-analysis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness

Tufanaru, Catalin, Munn, Zachary, Stephenson, Matthew, Aromataris, Edoardo·2015·International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare

Abstract

Systematic review aims to systematically identify, critically appraise, and summarize all relevant studies that match predefined criteria and answer predefined questions. The most common type of systematic review is that assessing the effectiveness of an intervention or therapy. In this article, we discuss some of the common methodological issues that arise when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of effectiveness data, including issues related to study designs, meta-analysis, and the use and interpretation of effect sizes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000065

Cites

59 of 59 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tufanaru, C., Munn, Z., Stephenson, M., & Aromataris, E.
Affiliations
The University of Adelaide (AU)
Venue
International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
Published
2015-09
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
196-207
ISSN
  • 1744-1595 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-1609
OpenAlex
W2180006680
Cited by
1,057
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 77 · 2025: 151 · 2024: 204 · 2023: 167 · 2022: 157 · 2021: 101 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 8
FWCI
4.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
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 › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
fixed-effects meta-analysis, random-effects meta-analysis, systematic review methodology, intervention effectiveness, effect size, research design
MeSH terms
Humans, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Odds Ratio, Guidelines as Topic, Cross-Over Studies, Evidence-Based Medicine, Observational Studies as Topic

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