Cited by 579Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Meta-evaluation of meta-analysis: ten appraisal questions for biologists

Open access
Nakagawa, Shinichi, Noble, Daniel W. A., Senior, Alistair M., Lagisz, Malgorzata·2017·BMC Biology

Abstract

Meta-analysis is a statistical procedure for analyzing the combined data from different studies, and can be a major source of concise up-to-date information. The overall conclusions of a meta-analysis, however, depend heavily on the quality of the meta-analytic process, and an appropriate evaluation of the quality of meta-analysis (meta-evaluation) can be challenging. We outline ten questions biologists can ask to critically appraise a meta-analysis. These questions could also act as simple and accessible guidelines for the authors of meta-analyses. We focus on meta-analyses using non-human species, which we term 'biological' meta-analysis. Our ten questions are aimed at enabling a biologist to evaluate whether a biological meta-analysis embodies 'mega-enlightenment', a 'mega-mistake', or something in between.

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/s12915-017-0357-7

Cites

108 of 108 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?

  • Publication bias can be mitigated by gathering the most comprehensive database possible.

    “This bias, known as publication bias, can be mitigated by gathering the most comprehensive database possible (Lortie et al., 2007; Nakagawa et al., 2017).”

    From Acoustic indices as proxies for biodiversity: a meta‐analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Nakagawa et al., 2017

  • Poorly and inexpertly conducted meta-analyses can provide biased and misleading results.

    “since poorly and inexpertly conducted meta-analyses can provide biased and misleading results (24, 32).”
  • While the number of published meta-analyses has continued to increase rapidly within and among disciplines, too many meta-analyses are of low quality.

    “While the number of published meta-analyses has continued to increase rapidly within and among disciplines, too many meta-analyses are of low quality 13-15 .”

    From Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018) · cites this paper as [15]

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

3 of the 111 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [4]Hedges L Olkin I Statistical methods for meta-analysis 1985 New York Academic Press
  2. [51]Mengersen K Schmid CH Jennions MD Gurevitch J Koricheva J Gurevitch J Mengersen K Statistical models and approcahes to inference The handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution 2013 Princeton Princeton University Press 89 107
  3. [52]Lajeunesse MJ Meta-analysis and the comparative phylogenetic method Am Nat 2009 174 369 81 19637963
  4. [69]Higgins JPT Green S Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2009 West Sussex Wiley-Blackwell
  5. [94]Lajeunesse MJ Koricheva J Gurevitch J Mengersen K Recovering missing or partial data from studies: a survey The handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution 2013 Princeton Princeton University Press 195 206

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nakagawa, S., Noble, D. W. A., Senior, A. M., & Lagisz, M.
Affiliations
  • Garvan Institute of Medical Research (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Nakagawa, Shinichi
Venue
BMC Biology
Published
2017-03-03
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
18-18
ISSN
1741-7007 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2593372779
Cited by
579
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 84 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 12
FWCI
10.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • University of New South Wales
  • University of Sydney
  • Australian Research Council (DE150101774, FT130100268)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
meta-evaluation, meta-analysis quality, critical appraisal, non-human species
MeSH terms
Documentation, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Publications, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Publication Bias, Knowledge

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