A brief history of research synthesis
Open accessAbstract
Science is supposed to be cumulative, but scientists only rarely cumulate evidence scientifically. This means that users of research evidence have to cope with a plethora of reports of individual studies with no systematic attempt made to present new results in the context of similar studies. Although the need to synthesize research evidence has been recognized for well over two centuries, explicit methods for this form of research were not developed until the 20th century. The development of methods to reduce statistical imprecision using quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) preceded the development of methods to reduce biases, the latter only beginning to receive proper attention during the last quarter of the 20th century. In this article, the authors identify some of the trends and highlights in this history, to which researchers in the physical, natural, and social sciences have all contributed, and speculate briefly about the "future history" of research synthesis.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
When major decisions need to be made about medicine and education, those fields often turn to systematic reviews.
“Indeed, as the authors (Chin and colleagues) note, when major decisions need to be made about medicine and education, those fields often turn to systematic reviews [12].”
From Transparency and diversity to advance legal-scientific communication (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
Systematic review methodology and the language used to express that methodology have progressed significantly since their appearance in healthcare in the 1970s and 80s.
“However, systematic review methodology and the language used to express that methodology, has progressed significantly since their appearance in healthcare in the 1970’s and 80’s [7, 8].”
From What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018) · cites this paper as [8]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 127 · Cited by 552
- Authors
- Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H.
- Affiliations
- Cochrane (GB)
- University of Chicago (US)
- University of Missouri (US)
- Venue
- Evaluation & the Health Professions
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-03
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 12-37
- ISSN
- 0163-2787 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3918
- OpenAlex
- W2163834848
- Cited by
- 552
- References
- 127
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 21
- FWCI
- 18.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Evaluation & the Health Professions (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DukeSpace (Duke University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- 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
- evidence synthesis, meta-analysis, bias mitigation, cumulative evidence, research utilization
- MeSH terms
- Research, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, History, 19th Century, History, 20th Century
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