Cited by 125Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

A guide to prospective meta-analysis

Open access
Seidler, Anna Lene, Hunter, Kylie E, Cheyne, Saskia, Ghersi, Davina, Berlin, Jesse A, Askie, Lisa·2019·BMJ

Abstract

In a prospective meta-analysis (PMA), study selection criteria, hypotheses, and analyses are specified before the results of the studies related to the PMA research question are known, reducing many of the problems associated with a traditional (retrospective) meta-analysis. PMAs have many advantages: they can help reduce research waste and bias, and they are adaptive, efficient, and collaborative. Despite an increase in the number of health research articles labelled as PMAs, the methodology remains rare, novel, and often misunderstood. This paper provides detailed guidance on how to address the key elements for conducting a high quality PMA with a case study to illustrate each step.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.l5342

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Berlin JA, Ghersi D. Preventing Publication Bias: Registries and Prospective Meta-Analysis. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 2006:35-48.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seidler, A. L., Hunter, K. E., Cheyne, S., Ghersi, D., Berlin, J. A., & Askie, L.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Johnson & Johnson (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Seidler, Anna Lene
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-10-09
Volume
367
Pages
l5342
ISSN
  • 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
OpenAlex
W2979464746
Cited by
125
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 20
FWCI
10.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
study selection criteria, hypothesis specification, research bias, research waste, research collaboration, health research methodology
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Prospective Studies, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Guidelines 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