Cited by 1,125Data Analysis with RScientific Computing and Data ManagementMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Closing the Gap between Methodologists and End-Users: R as a Computational Back-End

Open access
Wallace, Byron C., Dahabreh, Issa J., Trikalinos, Thomas A., Lau, Joseph, Trow, Paul, Schmid, Christopher H.·2012·Journal of Statistical Software

Abstract

The R environment provides a natural platform for developing new statistical methods due to the mathematical expressiveness of the language, the large number of existing libraries, and the active developer community. One drawback to R, however, is the learning curve; programming is a deterrent to non-technical users, who typically prefer graphical user interfaces (GUIs) to command line environments. Thus, while statisticians develop new methods in R, practitioners are often behind in terms of the statistical techniques they use as they rely on GUI applications. Meta-analysis is an instructive example; cutting-edge meta-analysis methods are often ignored by the overwhelming majority of practitioners, in part because they have no easy way of applying them. This paper proposes a strategy to close the gap between the statistical state-of-the-science and what is applied in practice. We present open-source meta-analysis software that uses R as the underlying statistical engine, and Python for the GUI. We present a framework that allows methodologists to implement new methods in R that are then automatically integrated into the GUI for use by end-users, so long as the programmer conforms to our interface. Such an approach allows an intuitive interface for non-technical users while leveraging the latest advanced statistical methods implemented by methodologists.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18637/jss.v049.i05

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

9 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wallace, B. C., Dahabreh, I. J., Trikalinos, T. A., Lau, J., Trow, P., & Schmid, C. H.
Affiliations
Tufts University (US)
Venue
Journal of Statistical Software
Published
2012
Volume
49
Issue
5
ISSN
1548-7660 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2120771911
Cited by
1,125
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 89 · 2024: 115 · 2023: 105 · 2022: 127 · 2021: 143 · 2020: 133 · 2019: 94 · 2018: 76 · 2017: 68 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
18.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Statistical Software (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Data Analysis with R
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
R, meta-analysis software, graphical user interface, Python, open source software, software integration, statistical software development, non-technical users

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