Cited by 1,162Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and BibliometricsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How to do a meta‐analysis

Field, Andy P., Gillett, Raphael·2010·British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology

Abstract

Meta‐analysis is a statistical tool for estimating the mean and variance of underlying population effects from a collection of empirical studies addressing ostensibly the same research question. Meta‐analysis has become an increasing popular and valuable tool in psychological research, and major review articles typically employ these methods. This article describes the process of conducting meta‐analysis: selecting articles, developing inclusion criteria, calculating effect sizes, conducting the actual analysis (including information on how to do the analysis on popular computer packages such as IBM SPSS and R) and estimating the effects of publication bias. Guidance is also given on how to write up a meta‐analysis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/000711010x502733

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 71 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Clark‐Carter D., 2003, Effect size: The missing piece in the jigsaw, Psychologist, 16, 636
  2. Cochrane Collaboration, 2008, Review Manager (RevMan) for Windows: Version 5.0
  3. 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 · DOI · Paper page
  4. DeCoster J., 1998, Microsoft Excel spreadsheets: Meta‐analysis
  5. Field A. P., 2005, A handbook of research methods in clinical and health psychology, 295
  6. Field A. P., 2009, How to do a meta‐analysis
  7. Fisher R. A., 1935, The design of experiments
  8. 10.2307/1164832 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Lavesque R., 2001, Syntax: Meta‐analysis
  10. 10.3102/10769986008002157 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Schwarzer G., 2005, Meta
  12. Wilson D. B., 2004, A spreadsheet for calculating standardized mean difference type effect sizes

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Field, A. P., & Gillett, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Sussex (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Field, Andy P.
  • Gillett, Raphael
Venue
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-11
Volume
63
Issue
3
Pages
665-694
ISSN
  • 0007-1102 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8317
OpenAlex
W2094667953
Cited by
1,162
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 99 · 2025: 136 · 2024: 115 · 2023: 117 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 78 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 63 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 14
FWCI
18.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
meta-analysis, effect size, publication bias, inclusion criteria, article selection, meta-analysis software
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Data Collection, Humans, Mathematical Computing, Psychology, Research, Software, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Effect Modifier, Epidemiologic, Publication Bias

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