Cited by 56Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and BibliometricsAcademic Writing and Publishing

Guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Open access
Rubio-Aparicio, María, Sánchez-Meca, Julio, Marín-Martínez, Fulgencio, López-López, José Antonio·2018·Anales de Psicología

Abstract

Meta-analysis is an essential methodology that allows researchers to synthesize the scientific evidence available on a given research question. Due to its wide applicability in most applied research fields, it is really important that meta-analyses be written and reported appropriately. In this paper we propose some guidelines to report the results of a meta-analysis in a scientific journal as Annals of Psychology. Concretely, the structure for reporting a meta-analysis following its different stages is detailed. In addition, some recommendations related to the usual tasks when conducting a meta-analysis are provided. A recent meta-analysis focused on the psychological field is used to illustrate the guidelines proposed. Finally, some concluding remarks are presented.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.6018/analesps.34.2.320131

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 48 · Cited by 56

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  2. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 295-315). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  3. Review Manager (2014). RevMan (Version 5.3) Computer software]. Co- penhagen, Denmark: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration.

Authors
Rubio-Aparicio, M., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & López-López, J. A.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Venue
Anales de Psicología
Published
2018-04-10
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
412
ISSN
  • 0212-9728 (ISSN-L)
  • 1695-2294
OpenAlex
W2797936283
Cited by
56
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Anales de Psicología (publishedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Ministerio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital, Gobierno de España
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 › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
reporting guidelines, meta-analysis, systematic reviews, evidence synthesis, scientific writing, psychology research

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