The DOI matches its Crossref record; 97 of the 97 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Invited review: Use of meta-analysis in animal health and reproduction: Methods and applications
Open accessAbstract
The objectives of this paper are to provide an introduction to meta-analysis and systematic review and to discuss the rationale for this type of research and other general considerations. We highlight methods used to produce a rigorous meta-analysis and discuss some aspects of interpretation of meta-analysis drawing on examples from the animal and veterinary science literature. Meta-analysis is a rapidly expanding area of research that has been relatively underutilized in animal and veterinary science. It is a quantitative, formal, epidemiological study design used to systematically assess previous research studies to derive conclusions about that body of research. Outcomes from a meta-analysis may include a more precise estimate of the effect of treatment or risk factor for disease, or other outcomes, than any individual study contributing to the pooled analysis. The examination of variability or heterogeneity in study results is also a critical outcome. The benefits of meta-analysis include a consolidated and quantitative review of a large, and often complex, sometimes apparently conflicting, body of literature. Meta-analytic methods place less emphasis on dichotomous outcomes from null hypothesis significance testing and greater emphasis on determining the magnitude and the precision of an effect of interest. A substantial benefit of meta-analysis is the potential to investigate new hypotheses using existing data, both through the development of a priori hypotheses and by examination of the heterogeneity in study responses. The specification of the outcome and hypotheses that are tested is critical to the conduct of meta-analyses, as is a sensitive literature search. A failure to identify the majority of existing studies can lead to erroneous conclusions; however, there are methods of examining data to identify the potential for studies to be missing; for example, by the use of funnel plots. Many of the statistical methods to conduct meta-analysis are widely used. Bayesian methods are well suited to meta-analysis. The post-hoc methods used to evaluate heterogeneity and publication bias, which include the I (2) statistic, L'Abbé plots, Galbraith plots, Rosenthal's N, and influential study analysis are exclusively used in meta-analysis. Examples where meta-analyses have been repeated in animal science or veterinary medicine show good consistency in estimates of effect. Findings of studies to date have provided new understandings of rumen modifiers, milk fever, parasite control, mastitis, somatotropin, and reproductive manipulations. Rigorously conducted meta-analyses are useful tools to improve animal well-being and productivity. The need to integrate findings from many studies ensures that meta-analytic research is desirable and the large body of research now generated makes the conduct of this research feasible.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(1990) · Computers, Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,269
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
Wasserman, S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,326
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Cited by
Duffield, T. F., Merrill, J. K., & Bagg, R. N. (2012) · Journal of Animal Science · doi:10.2527/jas.2011-5018 · Cited by 280
Self-citationSignorini, M. L., Soto, L. P., Zbrun, M. V., Sequeira, G. J., Rosmini, M. R., & Frizzo, L. S. (2012) · Research in Veterinary Science · doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2011.05.001 · Cited by 164
Rabiee, A. R., Lean, I. J., Stevenson, M. A., & Socha, M. T. (2010) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3058 · Cited by 158
Self-citationBlajman, J. E., Páez, R. B., Vinderola, C. G., Lingua, M. S., & Signorini, M. L. (2018) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1111/jam.14084 · Cited by 82
Kahoot! Game‐based digital learning platform: A comprehensive meta‐analysis
Özdemir, O. (2025) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.13084 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Lean, I. J., Rabiee, A. R., Duffield, T. F., & Dohoo, I. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Dairy Science
- Publisher
- American Dairy Science Association
- Published
- 2009-08
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 3545-3565
- ISSN
- 0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2162528280
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 97
- FWCI
- 12.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Invited review: Use of meta-analysis in animal health and reproduction: Methods and applications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3168/jds.2009-2140
- The paper
- Lean, I. J., Rabiee, A. R., Duffield, T. F., & Dohoo, I. R. (2009). Invited review: Use of meta-analysis in animal health and reproduction: Methods and applications. Journal of Dairy Science. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2140
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.