Cited by 5,827Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsData Analysis with RStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial

Open access
Balduzzi, Sara, Rücker, Gerta, Schwarzer, Guido·2019·Evidence Based Mental Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis is of fundamental importance to obtain an unbiased assessment of the available evidence. In general, the use of meta-analysis has been increasing over the last three decades with mental health as a major research topic. It is then essential to well understand its methodology and interpret its results. In this publication, we describe how to perform a meta-analysis with the freely available statistical software environment R, using a working example taken from the field of mental health. METHODS: R package meta is used to conduct standard meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses for missing binary outcome data and potential selection bias are conducted with R package metasens. All essential R commands are provided and clearly described to conduct and report analyses. RESULTS: The working example considers a binary outcome: we show how to conduct a fixed effect and random effects meta-analysis and subgroup analysis, produce a forest and funnel plot and to test and adjust for funnel plot asymmetry. All these steps work similar for other outcome types. CONCLUSIONS: R represents a powerful and flexible tool to conduct meta-analyses. This publication gives a brief glimpse into the topic and provides directions to more advanced meta-analysis methods available in R.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Among major modifiable risk factors of stillbirths, the risk attributed to malaria is approximately 8% and can be prevented if exposure is minimized.

    “Amongst the major modifiable risk factors of stillbirths, risk attributed to malaria is approximately 8% which can be prevented if exposure minimized [30].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Balduzzi, S., Rücker, G., & Schwarzer, G.
Affiliations
University of Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Balduzzi, Sara
Venue
Evidence Based Mental Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-09-28
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
153-160
ISSN
  • 1362-0347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-960X
OpenAlex
W2975424845
Cited by
5,827
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1019 · 2025: 1163 · 2024: 1107 · 2023: 876 · 2022: 885 · 2021: 574 · 2020: 200
FWCI
84.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Evidence-Based Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Data Analysis with R
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
meta-analysis, R software, meta-package, sensitivity analysis, selection bias, fixed effects model, random effects models, subgroup analysis, forest plots, funnel plot asymmetry, binary outcomes, mental health research
MeSH terms
Humans, Software, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Biomedical Research

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