3. First Steps in Beginning a Meta-analysis
Abstract
This chapter discusses the initiation of the process of systematic research synthesis. Without a systematic approach to defining, obtaining, and collating data, meta-analyses may yield precise but erroneous results, with different types of sampling error (biases) and excess subjectivity in choice of methods and definition of thresholds; these devalue the rigor of any statistical approaches employed. The chapter considers exactly the same issues that face an ecologist designing a field experiment. What's the question? How can I define my sampling universe? How should I collect my data? What analyses should I undertake? How should I interpret my results robustly? These questions are considered in the context of research synthesis.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
O’Dea, R. E., Lagisz, M., Jennions, M. D., Koricheva, J., Noble, D. W. A., Parker, T. H., Gurevitch, J., Page, M. J., Stewart, G. B., Moher, D., et al. (2021) · Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · doi:10.1111/brv.12721 · Cited by 771 · see citing works
Self-citationBarański, 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
Self-citationMacLean, S. A., & Beissinger, S. R. (2017) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.13736 · Cited by 362 · see citing works
The influence of liver fluke infection on production in sheep and cattle: a meta-analysis
Hayward, A. D., Skuce, P. J., & McNeilly, T. N. (2021) · International Journal for Parasitology · doi:10.1016/j.ijpara.2021.02.006 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Why discrepancies in searching the conservation biology literature matter
Calver, M., Goldman, B. D., HUTCHINGS, P. A., & Kingsford, R. T. (2017) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.028 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
A century of change in avifauna of California's most transformed landscapes
MacLean, S. A. (2018) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stewart, G. B., Côté, I. M., Rothstein, H. R., & Curtis, P. S.
- Venue
- Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Princeton University Press
- Published
- 2013-12-31
- Pages
- 27-36
- OpenAlex
- W2505936089
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 0.60
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Princeton University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Center For Environmental Assessment
- 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 › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- 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
