The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Getting started with meta‐analysis
Open accessAbstract
Summary: 1. Meta‐analysis is a powerful and informative tool for basic and applied research. It provides a statistical framework for synthesizing and comparing the results of studies which have all tested a particular hypothesis. Meta‐analysis has the potential to be particularly useful for ecologists and evolutionary biologists, as individual experiments often rely on small sample sizes due to the constraints of time and manpower, and therefore have low statistical power. 2. The rewards of conducting a meta‐analysis can be significant. It can be the basis of a systematic review of a topic that provides a powerful exploration of key hypotheses or theoretical assumptions, thereby influencing the future development of a field of research. Alternatively, for the applied scientist, it can provide robust answers to questions of ecological, medical or economic significance. However, planning and conducting a meta‐analysis can be a daunting prospect and the analysis itself is invariably demanding and labour intensive. Errors or omissions made at the planning stage can create weeks of extra work. 3. While a range of useful resources is available to help the budding meta‐analyst on his or her way, much of the key information and explanation is spread across different articles and textbooks. In order to help the reader use the available information as efficiently as possible (and so avoid making time‐consuming errors) this article aims to provide a ‘road map’ to the existing literature. It provides a brief guide to planning, organizing and implementing a meta‐analysis which focuses more on logic and implementation than on maths; it is intended to be a first port of call for those interested in the topic and should be used in conjunction with the more detailed books and articles referenced. In the main, references are cited and discussed with an emphasis on useful reading order rather than a chronological history of meta‐analysis and its uses. 4. No prior knowledge of meta‐analysis is assumed in the current article, though it is assumed that the reader is familiar with anova and regression‐type statistical models.
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
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology
Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:tmaorr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 4,704
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists
Nakagawa, S., & Cuthill, I. C. (2007) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2007.00027.x · Cited by 3,835
Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients
Schielzeth, H. (2010) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00012.x · Cited by 3,027 · cited 1×
“Hedges, Gurevitch & Curtis (1999) provide an introduction to the use of response ratios for ecological data and Schielzeth (2010) presents a thoughtful and interesting perspective on the calculation and presentation of correlation coefficients.”
BackgroundThings I have learned (so far).
Cohen, J. (1990) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.45.12.1304 · Cited by 1,781
Rosenberg, M. S. (2005) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01004.x · Cited by 1,285 · cited 5×
“However, Rosenberg (2005) makes the important point that suggested methods for calculating the failsafe sample size are overly simple and likely to be misleading, in the main because they do not take into account the weighting of individual studies in the meta-analytic data set – a curious omission, given that weighti…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHandbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution
(2013) · doi:10.1515/9781400846184 · Cited by 1,183
Guidelines for systematic review in Conservation and environmental management
PULLIN, A. S., & STEWART, G. B. (2006) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x · Cited by 1,137
A Meta-Analysis of Competition in Field Experiments
Gurevitch, J., Morrow, L. L., Wallace, A., & Walsh, J. S. (1992) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285428 · Cited by 865
Cited by
Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis
Nakagawa, S., & Santos, E. S. A. (2012) · Evolutionary Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10682-012-9555-5 · Cited by 1,032
Global meta-analysis reveals no net change in local-scale plant biodiversity over time
Vellend, M., Baeten, L., Myers-Smith, I. H., Elmendorf, S. C., Beauséjour, R., Brown, C. D., De Frenne, P., Verheyen, K., & Wipf, S. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1312779110 · Cited by 628
A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency
Noonan, M. J., Grant, J. W. A., & Jackson, C. D. (2012) · Fish and Fisheries · doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00445.x · Cited by 501
Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews
Haddaway, N. R., Woodcock, P., Macura, B., & Collins, A. (2015) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12541 · Cited by 416
Davies, G. M., & Gray, A. (2015) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.1782 · Cited by 333
Metadata
- Authors
- Harrison, F.
- Venue
- Methods in Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-10
- ISSN
- 2041-210X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1490968191
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 13.56
- 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: Getting started with meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00056.x
- The paper
- Harrison, F. (2011). Getting started with meta‐analysis. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00056.x
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.