Cited by 270Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyDelphi Technique in Research

Meta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy

Open access
Berman, Nancy G, Parker, Robert A·2002·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis is often considered to be a simple way to summarize the existing literature. In this paper we describe how a meta-analysis resembles a conventional study, requiring a written protocol with design elements that parallel those of a record review. METHODS: The paper provides a structure for creating a meta-analysis protocol. Some guidelines for measurement of the quality of papers are given. A brief overview of statistical considerations is included. Four papers are reviewed as examples. The examples generally followed the guidelines we specify in reporting the studies and results, but in some of the papers there was insufficient information on the meta-analysis process. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis can be a very useful method to summarize data across many studies, but it requires careful thought, planning and implementation.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2288-2-10

Cites

43 of 44 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?

  • The study followed a rigorous inclusion/exclusion protocol to ensure minimisation of confounding factors amongst the randomized controlled trial populations.

    “We followed a rigorous inclusion/exclusion protocol to ensure minimisation of confounding factors amongst the RCT populations [112].”

    From Estimating the Effect of Aerobic Exercise Training on Novel Lipid Biomarkers: A Systematic Review and Multivariate Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2023) · cites this paper as [112]

    The Methods section, “Defining the Population of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis” (page not specified), recommends protocol-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria to safeguard against selection bias. It does not say that such criteria minimise confounding factors among RCT populations. The citing authors’ statement that they followed a protocol is their own account, not something this source can verify. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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: 3

  1. Stein RA Meta-analysis from one FDA reviewer's perspective. 1988 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association Biopharmaceutical Section 1988 34 38
  2. Hedges LV Olkin I Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis London: Academic Press 1985
  3. Fleiss JL The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res 1993 2 121 145 8261254

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berman, N. G., & Parker, R. A.
Affiliations
  • Harbor–UCLA Medical Center (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Berman, Nancy G
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2002-08-09
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
10-10
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2123303485
Cited by
270
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 16
FWCI
2.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (RR00425, RR 01032)
  • National Center for Research Resources (RR 01032, M01RR001032, RR00425, M01RR000425)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
meta-analysis, protocol design, study quality assessment, reporting guidelines, statistical considerations, research planning
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Demography, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Treatment Outcome, 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