1. Place of Meta-analysis among Other Methods of Research Synthesis
Abstract
Meta-analysis is a method of research synthesis. Research synthesis may be defined as a review of primary research on a given topic with the purpose of integrating the findings (e.g., for creating generalizations or resolving conflicts). Research synthesis is central to the scientific enterprise. Without it, the evidence for various alternative hypotheses cannot be properly evaluated and generalizations cannot be reached, thus the advance of the scientific field as well as any potential practical applications are inhibited. Meta-analysis employs specialized techniques for data gathering and analysis developed specifically for the purposes of research synthesis. This chapter reviews the variety of approaches to research synthesis and discusses their relative merits, advantages, limitations, and drawbacks.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Weighted meta-analyses are widely regarded as the most appropriate statistical approach for comparing data sets from studies with variable experimental designs.
“Weighted meta-analyses are widely regarded as the most appropriate statistical approach for comparing data sets from studies with variable experimental designs( 25 , 26 ).”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science
Head, M. L., Holman, L., Lanfear, R., Kahn, A. T., & Jennions, M. D. (2015) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106 · Cited by 1,388 · see citing works
Barański, M., Średnicka-Tober, D., Volakakis, N., Seal, C., Sanderson, R., Stewart, G. B., Benbrook, C., Biavati, B., Markellou, E., Giotis, C., et al. (2014) · British Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114514001366 · Cited by 684 · see citing works
Uses and misuses of meta‐analysis in plant ecology
Koricheva, J., & Gurevitch, J. (2014) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12224 · Cited by 460 · see citing works
Self-citationHeterogeneity in ecological and evolutionary meta‐analyses: its magnitude and implications
Senior, A. M., Grueber, C. E., Kamiya, T., Lagisz, M., O'Dwyer, K., Santos, E. S. A., & Nakagawa, S. (2016) · Ecology · doi:10.1002/ecy.1591 · Cited by 299 · see citing works
Meta‐analysis of magnitudes, differences and variation in evolutionary parameters
Morrissey, M. B. (2016) · Journal of Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1111/jeb.12950 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
How to critically read ecological meta-analyses
Lortie, C. J., Stewart, G., Rothstein, H., & Lau, J. (2015) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1109 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
- Authors
- Koricheva, J., & Gurevitch, J.
- Venue
- Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Princeton University Press
- Published
- 2013-12-31
- Pages
- 3-13
- OpenAlex
- W2501760718
- Cited by
- 121
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 27.63
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Princeton University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Education › Diverse Academic Research Areas
- Keywords
- meta-analysis, evidence synthesis, systematic reviews
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