Cited by 1,780Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and Bibliometricsscientometrics and bibliometrics research

Meta-Analysis: Recent Developments in Quantitative Methods for Literature Reviews

Rosenthal, R., DiMatteo, M. R.·2001·Annual Review of Psychology

Abstract

▪ Abstract We describe the history and current status of the meta-analytic enterprise. The advantages and historical criticisms of meta-analysis are described, as are the basic steps in a meta-analysis and the role of effect sizes as chief coins of the meta-analytic realm. Advantages of the meta-analytic procedures include seeing the “landscape” of a research domain, keeping statistical significance in perspective, minimizing wasted data, becoming intimate with the data summarized, asking focused research questions, and finding moderator variables. Much of the criticism of meta-analysis has been based on simple misunderstanding of how meta-analyses are actually carried out. Criticisms of meta-analysis that are applicable are equally applicable to traditional, nonquantitative, narrative reviews of the literature. Much of the remainder of the chapter deals with the processes of effect size estimation, the understanding of the heterogeneity of the obtained effect sizes, and the practical and scientific importance of the effect sizes obtained.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.59

Cites

67 of 67 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R.
Affiliations
University of California, Riverside (US)
Venue
Annual Review of Psychology
Published
2001-02
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
59-82
ISSN
  • 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2085
OpenAlex
W1870939480
Cited by
1,780
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 97 · 2023: 99 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 98 · 2020: 109 · 2019: 103 · 2018: 89 · 2017: 83 · 2016: 75 · 2015: 81 · 2014: 85 · 2013: 79 · 2012: 91
FWCI
7.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annual Review of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
meta-analysis, effect size, effect size estimation, effect size heterogeneity, moderators, history of meta-analysis
MeSH terms
Humans, Research, Science, Meta-Analysis 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