Cited by 1,027Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyData Analysis with R

Metan: fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis

Open access
Harris, Ross J., Deeks, Jonathan J., Altman, Douglas G., Bradburn, Michael J., Harbord, Roger M., Sterne, Jonathan A. C.·2008·The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata

Abstract

This article describes updates of the meta-analysis command metan and options that have been added since the command's original publication (Bradburn, Deeks, and Altman, metan – an alternative meta-analysis command, Stata Technical Bulletin Reprints, vol. 8, pp. 86–100). These include version 9 graphics with flexible display options, the ability to meta-analyze precalculated effect estimates, and the ability to analyze subgroups by using the by() option. Changes to the output, saved variables, and saved results are also described.

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 · 10.1177/1536867x0800800102

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • Two researchers assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, version 1.0, with discrepancies resolved by consensus with a third reviewer.

    “Two researchers (including C.B.) assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, version 1.0.14 Discrepancies were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer (C.L.H.).”

    From Association of Antenatal Diet and Physical Activity–Based Interventions With Gestational Weight Gain and Pregnancy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Introduction (p. 1) describes methods for pooling study results, and the Example (p. 8) demonstrates the metan command. Searches for the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, version 1.0, and reviewer consensus found no passage addressing the cited risk-of-bias assessment. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 2

  1. Bradburn, M. J., J. J. Deeks, and D. G. Altman. 1998. sbe24: metan - an alternative meta-analysis command. Stata Technical Bulletin 44: 4-15. Reprinted in Stata Technical Bulletin Reprints , vol. 8, pp. 86-100. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
  2. Sharp, S., and J. Sterne. 1997. sbe16: Meta-analysis. Stata Technical Bulletin 38: 9-14. Reprinted in Stata Technical Bulletin Reprints , vol. 7, pp. 100-106. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harris, R. J., Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., Bradburn, M. J., Harbord, R. M., & Sterne, J. A. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Harris, Ross J.
Venue
The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata
Published
2008-04
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
3-28
ISSN
  • 1536-867X (ISSN-L)
  • 1536-8734
OpenAlex
W1595237219
Cited by
1,027
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 83 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 105 · 2020: 85 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 67 · 2015: 80 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 57 · 2012: 32
FWCI
21.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Stata Journal Promoting communications on statistics and Stata (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
  • AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
  • AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Data Analysis with R
Keywords
Stata, fixed-effects meta-analysis, random-effects meta-analysis, subgroup analysis

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