Science method
Meta-Analysis - Science method
Works consisting of studies using a quantitative method of combining the results of independent studies (usually drawn from the published literature) and synthesizing summaries and conclusions which may be used to evaluate therapeutic effectiveness, plan new studies, etc. It is often an overview of clinical trials. It is usually called a meta-analysis by the author or sponsoring body and should be differentiated from reviews of literature.
Questions related to Meta-Analysis
Hi Researchers
I am doing meta-analysis for one of my SR. Could you please from your expertise suggests if we can do the meta-analysis of RCT and multiarm-RCTs together?
Thank you
Hello ,
I am conducting a meta-analysis on refractive errors using data from 50 observational studies. These studies do not include control groups, as the focus is on descriptive outcomes such as prevalence, mean spherical equivalent, and trends across different populations.
I would greatly appreciate your guidance on the following:
- Statistical methods: What is the most appropriate model for pooling prevalence data (e.g., logit transformation vs. Freeman-Tukey double arcsine)?
- Handling heterogeneity: With high variability expected across studies (due to different populations, measurement methods, etc.), what strategies would you recommend for subgroup or sensitivity analyses?
- Publication bias: How do you address publication bias when the data is prevalence-based rather than effect-size-based?
- Software/tools: Are there specific tools (e.g., R packages, CMA, RevMan) that you have found particularly useful for meta-analyses of this nature?
Dear colleagues,
When selecting dental materials for clinical use, common criteria such as the presence of a Safety Data Sheet (SDS) and certifications like CE (European Conformity) and FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) are often considered essential. However, I believe there might be additional factors worth discussing to ensure safety, quality, and optimal clinical performance.
In your opinion, what other criteria should be considered when choosing dental materials for patients? Have you encountered materials that, despite having necessary certifications, did not perform well in clinical settings?
Some additional factors I propose include:
Biocompatibility: Ensuring no allergic or inflammatory reactions in oral tissues.
Clinical performance and durability: Resistance to wear, discoloration, and thermal expansion in the oral environment.
Absence of harmful substances: For instance, materials free from Bisphenol A (BPA).
Compatibility: With other materials or systems used in dentistry.
Scientific evidence: Backed by peer-reviewed studies and long-term clinical trials.
I am keen to hear your experiences, insights, and any relevant literature or research findings you could share.
Dear researchers,
I have a plan to conduct a meta-analysis of a construct that has five dimensions. Do you think that would be possible? How can I handle the issue that each study considers only one dimension of the construct? Please recommend some references that I can use.
I’ve recently had the opportunity to participate in a systemic review and meta analysis as independent researcher (not affiliated with my University). Who is leading the overall project is telling us that is ok and we don’t have to ask permission to the University to submit the paper however I do feel uncomfortable in doing so. Is anyone else been in my position before or know the technicalities behind the affiliation process in pre-publication stage?
Thank you so much in advance
I tried to do meta analysis of single arm studies (without control) using R studio, but I still can't find how to do the pooled analysis. I only have the mean and SD from pre treatment and mean with SD after weeks of treatment. Can I do pooled meta analysis of the single arm studies with continous data from pre and post intervention in R studio?
Hello everyone,
I am conducting a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of various PTSD treatments (e.g., Prolonged Exposure Therapy, CPT...) using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA). For each treatment, I have calculated the within-treatment effect size (Hedges' g) based on pre- to post-treatment or pre- to follow-up changes across multiple studies. I also have the corresponding Q-statistics for each treatment group.
Now, I would like to compare these treatments to determine if there are significant differences in their efficacy. Specifically, I am wondering:
- Should I focus on comparing the total Hedges' g scores for each treatment?
- Or should I compare the Q-statistics instead?
- Alternatively, is there a more appropriate method (e.g., subgroup analysis, meta-regression) within CMA to assess differences across treatment types?
I would greatly appreciate any guidance or suggestions on how to approach this comparison in CMA, and also how to do so.
Thank you!
Hi all,
I want to conduct a meta analysis and for the first step we identified the corresponding corpus of articles related to the topic/ research theme.
The next step, as far as I understand , is to find all the quantitative contributions. Currently, because it is a fairly well studied theme, there is a total of approximately one thousand articles.
How is it possible to identify all the quantitative contributions in this big list of articles other than downloading the 1k articles and scanning manually through all of them?
Is there a specific method or tool to do that ? I don't think databases such as WOS or Scopus have a specific filter.
thank you in advance for your help!
Dear all,
I am currently conducting a meta-analysis using the CMA software and have encountered some SEM studies. I have selected the "Correlation and sample size" option in CMA, and I am entering the path coefficients into the correlation field, while using the study's sample size as the number of participants.
I would greatly appreciate any advice or clarification on whether this approach is correct. Should path coefficients be treated as correlations in this context, or is there a better way to handle SEM data in meta-analysis? Additionally, I was wondering if anyone could point me to any articles that provide detailed guidance on how to enter different types of effect sizes in CMA?
Thank you so much for your time and help!
Please provide a reference if you can. Thank you.
Hello everyone,
I am building a cost-effectiveness decision tree, and the probabilities at each node are supposed to come from Relative Risks reported in a meta-analysis. However, I do not have baseline probabilities for each outcome (e.g., treatment success) in the control arm. I know that Odds Ratios can be more directly converted to probabilities, but I want to stay consistent with the meta-analysis data using RR.
- Are there any recommended methods or assumptions for deriving baseline probabilities when only RRs from a meta-analysis are available?
- Is it acceptable to approximate these baseline risks using data from alternative sources or expert opinion?
Any guidance or references on handling this scenario would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance!
I would like to know if I suspect that two studies (same authors) was based on the same patients but with different follow-up. Can we include both? Can we dowgrade one of them (high risk of bias) to exclude one in a sensitivity analysis? I cannot find any clear answer in the different tools assessing quality of evidence (GRADE, RoBs, ...)
Is it logical to convert an effect measure given as an ODDs ratio in an article to a Hazard ratio to be pooled in the Meta Analysis given the effect measures in other articles are Hazard ratios?
Dear Colleagues,
Professor Tim Bogg and I are currently conducting a meta-analysis evaluating the associations between dietary behaviors and Big Five/Five-Factor personality traits at Wayne State University.
We are seeking relevant unpublished research and conference presentations on this topic, including unpublished data, manuscripts in progress, and/or papers that have been accepted for publication but are not yet in press. Studies that focus on operationally defined “healthy” or “Unhealthy” eating behavior or bivariate correlations between consumption of specific food items (e.g. fruit, meat, sugar) and the Big Five personality traits are welcome!
For inclusion in our meta-analysis…
A measure of the Big Five personality traits was used.
Specific food items or well defined food categories
Correlations for the above relationships should either be reported or be able to be computed.
To submit your work for consideration in our meta-analysis, please email paula.harrison@wayne.edu with (a) either a paper describing the study and its results or your raw data, and (b) the reference for your work.
We greatly appreciate any information you are able to share! Please provide any additional contact information in the event that we may need to ask follow-up questions regarding the characteristics of the sample, your measurement approach, or other methodological factors.
Best,
Paula Harrison, M.A.
Tim Bogg, Ph.D.
I tried to do meta analysis of single arm studies (without control) using R studio, but I still can't find how to do the pooled analysis. I only have the mean and SD from pre treatment and mean with SD after weeks of treatment. Can I do pooled meta analysis of the single arm studies with continous data from pre and post intervention in R studio?
We performed a meta analysis recently and SAS popped out an i=squared of exactly zero. I know this is theoretically possible but it doesn't make sense to me as the outcomes in the different studies in the analysis did not have the exact same means and variances. Can anyone shed light on this?
Thanking you all in advance for your thoughts.
Gary
Addressing publication bias is important in a meta-analysis. There are several ways of assessing that, including the funnel plot, Egger's test, and Begg's test. I wonder which approach is preferred or more accurately reflects PB?
Hi all,
I have a very simple question.
When conducting a meta-analysis I encountered an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis and I was wondering if I can pool these outcome measures (odds ratios for instance) with the others from the single studies.
Cheers!
TBJ
What is the difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis?
It is generally accepted to take the average effect size (e.g., correlation coefficient) if a study reports more than one effect size in meta-analysis. Can I apply the same rule for time-to-event data, where the log hazard ratio and its variance are of interest? Can I take the average of the variances of the effect sizes and use that value as the variance of the averaged effect size?
Dear colleagues,
We are conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional data, and I am looking for a suitable workflow management software. Those that I have worked with (RevMan) or explored (Covidence) seem to be focusing on intervention studies that do require a comparator group. We don't have this in prevalence data. Does anyone know of a software that can do the job? If open source, even better. Note that I am not looking for data analysis packages, data analysis will be done in R. What I am looking for is a program to upload the references from the search results for title screening, abstract screening, full text screening and eventually, data extraction. Thereafter, we will export to R.
Thank you in advance for your help, best, Fabian
Hi, I am doing a meta-analysis and I need the values to be Mean (SD). A study has the mean change between two groups as GMR and CI values. Is it possible to change these values to Mean (SD) please?
Thank you for your time.
Hello,
I am conducting a meta-analysis of mortality rates among ICU patients. I have extracted events and sample size from included studies to estimate the overall effect. I want to calculate odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals using the Mantel-Haenszel method.
I am seeking advice on the most appropriate meta-analysis model to use in this instance. Should I use the fixed-effect or random-effects model?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Beatriz
I believe Systemic Reviews and Meta Analysis require a lot of Clinical Acumen and Expertise apart from Content Writing and Data Analysis that only Subject Specialists have.
Since Meta and Systemic Reviews are considered a high quality of evidence and can affect Clinical Practices therefore, only Subject Specialists should have the mandate for it.
it's open to discussion. Do share your insight.
#MetaAnalysis #SystemicReviews #Research #QuestionOfTheDay
Hello everyone, I am currently working on my first meta-analysis using revman. I would really appreciate any advice on how to proceed.
For some of my articles, I have the raw data (e.g out of 12 exposed, 6 has outcome. out of 12 not exposed, 6 has the outcome). For other articles, I have unadjusted and adjusted odds ratio without any raw data.
I would like to ask 3 questions.
1. is it possible for me to combine both the raw data and unadjusted odds ratio using the generic inverse variance function to generate a forest plot?
2. can i combine unadjusted odds ratio, adjusted odds ratio and raw data in generic inverse variance?
3. is it okay if i only use the manual dichotomous function to put in raw data and leave out the studies without raw data?
Thank you very much
Studies should be selected based on predefined inclusion criteria, such as study design (e.g., randomized controlled trials), population (school-aged children), and intervention type (oral health education, fluoride programs).
Sánchez-Martín, M., Gutiérrez-Sánchez, M., Olmedo-Moreno, E.M. and Navarro-Mateu, F., 2024. A systematic review to evaluate the risk of bias of meta-analyses reporting experimental educational interventions focused on academic performance. Cogent Education, 11(1), p.2385785.
1. Scopus = Embase?
2. Scopus = Web of Science?
3. Scopus = Embase+Web of Science?
or
1. Scopus ≠ Embase?
2. Scopus ≠ Web of Science?
3. Scopus ≠ Embase+Web of Science?
If researchers use both Embase and Web of Science but do not include Scopus, how does this choice affect their search results?
A meta analysis has been done considering the articles published between the year 1997 and 2004. I am interested to do meta analysis in the same topic. Is it valid?. can I take all articles without time restrictions or is it better to take articles after 2004?
Hello everyone,
My greetings to all the scholar.
Recently, I am conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis, that will evaluate the psychological factors affecting a certain behavior (for example impulsivity). Initial sorting found most of the papers estimated the effect size by structural equation modelling. There is a path analysis also found in several studies. For example, one paper showed the anxiety causes the impulsivity. The fact is, the whole thing was hypothesized first, then analyzed by structural equation model. In the model, the anxiety was mediated by some other factor and caused impulsivity. For example, please see the attached file.
Now, I need to extract the data from these types of papers where most of the cases were mediated or have direct and indirect effect on the dependent variable. To conduct a meta-analysis how can extract the data and information from these?
It would be very helpful if there is any detailed methods, example, references and guidelines on this problem.
Hi colleagues,
I hope you’re doing well. I am currently conducting a meta-analysis on the interaction effect between A and B, and I need some guidance on 1) which effect size to extract from the primary studies, and 2) how to convert other types of effect sizes to the chosen one.
I’ve noticed that most existing meta-analyses and guidelines (e.g., Hunter & Schmidt, 2004), focus primarily on correlational or treatment effects. The literature on moderator analysis (e.g., the moderating effect of study characteristics on the focal relationship) does not seem directly applicable to my study.
Any help or recommendations for specific references or literature would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you in advance for your kind help.
Hello Researchers,
We are attempting a meta-analysis of studies regarding relationships between Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS) measured with the Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS) and Big Five personality traits. We would like to ask you to provide your unpublished results of such correlations.
Data needed:
Authors, Year, if you used the original HSPS or modified it, modifications to the scale (if applicable), what subscales you used (if applicable), Personality scale used, sample size, country, mean age, sample characteristics, correlation HSPS-Openness, HSPS-Consciousness, HSPS-Extraversion, HSPS-Agreeableness, HSPS-Neuroticism, correlations between personality dimensions and HSPS subscales (if Smolewska et al. (2006) scales were used - EOE, LST, AES), Cronbach's Alfa for HSPS and subscales.
If your data is not analyzed, we would welcome the raw dataset.
Our meta-analysis is preregistered here: https://osf.io/n2wj5
Dear researchers,
In a systematic review (not a meta-analysis) compiling studies on various diagnostic systems against a specific pathogen. The most relevant parameters evaluated are the type of material used, the type of sample used, and the detection limit achieved.
It is important to note that these are not clinical or observational studies, and no diagnostic performance parameters are being compared to a gold standard.
What type of application or platform would be most suitable for evaluating the quality (risk of bias) of the selected articles? Would it be possible to modify any published platform?
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Daniel
Hi!
I was studying diagnostic meta-analysis by Jones et al (
and I tried to calculate the Q value from cited.
"Q is the intercept of the SROC and the antidiagonal line through the unit square. Its value indicates overall accuracy by finding where sensitivity and specificity are the same"
1. I started inserting the confuse matrix data and making a reitsma object from "mada" package
2. Then I gave it's value to the sroc() function with the return_function method set it to T in order to give me the generic function of sROC (let's call it f(x))
3. I then used uniroot() to find the (1-specificity) value where sROC and the anti-diagonal curve intercepts each other.
4. Finally, I gave the false positive rate back to f(x) and found the sensitivity, and so, the Q value.
Is there a more direct approach for this in R?
Hi all, I am wondering if anybody knows how to calculate the effect size (e.g. Cohen's d) based on the information provided in this table (see image) comparing each intervention condition to the control group. At the bottom, it provides the mean and standard deviation for each outcome for the control group. Rather than providing the mean and standard deviation for the intervention groups, it presents an estimated treatment effect. The article states "The treatment effects may be interpreted as average outcome differences between those from treatment groups and those from the control group...." So if positive, you'd add the estimated treatmenty effect to the control group mean to get the estimated mean for the treatment group. It also provides the standard error of the estimated treatment effect in brackets (but I believe this is not the same as the SE of the treatment mean - but maybe it is possible to calculate or estimate that?). So you have a mean and SD for the control group but only and estimated mean for the treatment group, if I'm understanding correctly. Any recommendations and insights would be helpful.

I am at the end of conducting a large systematic review and meta-analysis. I have experience of meta-analysis and have attempted to meta-analyse the studies myself, but I am not happy with my method. The problem is that almost all the studies are crossover studies and I am not sure how to analyse them correctly. I have consulted the Cochrane Handbook, and it seems to suggest a paired analysis is best, but I do not have the expertise to do this - https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-23#section-23-2-6
I am seeking a statistician familiar with meta-analysis to consult with, and if possible, undertake the meta-analysis. There are only two authors on this paper (me and a colleague), so you would either be second or last author. We aim to publish in a Q1 or Q2 journal, and from my own analysis I can see we have very interesting results.
Please let me know if you are interested.
A paper has been Retracted by the author for population problem what about meta-analysis with this
I am excited to announce an opportunity for dedicated researchers to join our dynamic team for an ongoing meta-analysis study. If you are passionate about research and have a keen interest in organizational behavior or management area (e.g., leadership, innovative behaviours, employee eattitudes, perceptions etc.), we would love to hear from you!
Project Overview:
Title: Meta-Analysis on Leadership styles and various theoretical correlatesç
Objective: To synthesize existing research findings and provide comprehensive insights into how and whic leadership styles are more effective in spesific outcomes.
Scope: Our study aims to cover various aspects of leadership stles including but not limited to:
- Behaviours
- Perceptions
- Attitudes
- Emotions
- Orientations
What We Are Looking For:
Position: Researcher / Co-author
Qualifications:
- Ph.D. degree in Management
- Strong background in research methodology and statistical analysis
- Experience with meta-analysis techniques is highly desirable
- Proficiency in data analysis software (e.g., SPSS, R, Stata)
- Excellent analytical and critical thinking skills
- Strong written and verbal communication skills
- Ability to work collaboratively in a team environment
Responsibilities:
- Conduct literature reviews and data extraction
- Perform statistical analyses and data synthesis
- Contribute to the interpretation and presentation of findings
- Assist in manuscript preparation for publication
- Participate in regular team meetings and discussions
Benefits:
- Opportunity to contribute to impactful research
- Collaborative and supportive team environment
- Potential for co-authorship on research publications
- Gain valuable experience in meta-analysis and advanced research methods
How to Apply:
Interested candidates are invited to submit the following documents:
- A cover letter outlining your interest and relevant experience
- Curriculum Vitae (CV)
- A sample of previous research work (if available)
Deadline for Applications: 16.08.2024
Submit Applications To: borayildiz@istanbul.edu.tr
Mail Subject: Research Team Application for Meta-Analysis Project
For more information or any inquiries, please contact Bora Yildiz at borayildiz@istanul.edu.tr
Join us in advancing knowledge and making a meaningful impact in management field. We look forward to welcoming enthusiastic researchers to our team!
Hi, community!
I am conducting a meta-analysis and meta-regression to calculate the pooled adjusted odds ratio (AOR) and I² with the p-value for variables associated with hypertension prevalence. I have a dataset with the following columns:
- study_id: Study identifier
- AOR: Adjusted odds ratio (each independent variable)
- lower_CI: Lower confidence interval (each independent variable)
- upper_CI: Upper confidence interval (each independent variable)
- variable: Independent variable
Here is the script I am using in R:
# Calculate the standard error (seTE)
data$seTE <- (log(data$upper_CI) - log(data$lower_CI)) / (2 * 1.96)
# Meta-analysis
meta_analysis <- metagen(TE = log(data$AOR),
seTE = data$seTE,
data = data,
studlab = data$study_id,
comb.fixed = TRUE,
comb.random = TRUE)
I would like to know if this script is correct for achieving my goals of:
- Calculating the pooled AOR and the 95% confidence interval.
- Calculating the I² and the p-value to assess heterogeneity.
Any feedback or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you!
Hello everyone,
I have written a narrative review on a topic obtaining the literature from other research articles and review papers. But I wish to convert it to systematic review (without meta analysis) now. I have noticed that most systematic reviews are based on clinical trials. Is it still possible to get it done based on my sources?
This is for a meta-analysis using generic inverse variance method and random-effects model in RevMan. The exposure is smoking and outcome is mortality due to TB.
Hi everybody,
We are trying to write a systematic review meta-analysis paper. But I could find 19 references. I think 19 references are not enough to do a meta-analysis section and it is better to just write a systematic review. What do you think?
In addition, about 4 of them are non-English (Farsi) references. Can we use them? Or Can we use reference paper?
Maryam
What are the potential reasons that most studies fall outside the 95% confidence interval?

Dear all,
We have submitted a manuscript for publication that presents a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the influence of a gene polymorphism on cancer risk. The study involved the selection of published case-control studies from various countries across all continents, comparing the allele frequencies of a specific gene polymorphism in populations with cancer to those of healthy subjects.
The reviewer has requested "External validity is missing, please provide."
However, I am unfamiliar with what constitutes external validity in this context.
It is well known in current scenario, the importance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as I could see a lot questions related to it, would a skilled supportive community can play a crucial role in enriching the society with quality reviews and meta analysis with 24*7 support system.
If so, how many would
1. Recommend,
2. Highly recommend
3. Not necessarily required
How many of you would be interested being a part of support community? and what would be your role?
Dear researchers. I have extracted data from graphs for meta analysis. I am stuck to find the SD for the obtained data. Anyone who can help me to sort out this problem with formula?
Thank you
Regards
Mukesh Kumar
Hello everyone,
I am conducting a meta-analysis to find if x has superior effect than y on the outcome. I used the SMD method and I got a significant moderate heterogeneity of a value I2: 52%
should I do the subgroup analysis to find out where the heterogneity came from?
I have only 16 studies and if i want to subgroup by intervention types (EG), I dont have an equal number of studies for each group. also when I wanted to subgroup by health status, I had 6 studies that used persons with MS, 1 study that used persons with stroke, 1 study used healthy population, 3 studies with MCI etc... so the number of studies is not equal among the subgroups. can I still do that?
I want to run a meta-analysis for linkage mapping and GWAS QTLs and I will require a software to be able to achieve this.
My study aims to synthesise data on the mean age of participants when they were diagnosed with hearing loss, and I wanted to conduct a meta-analysis to obtain the meta-analysed mean age of identification with SD... I have obtained data from 12 studies that met the inclusion criteria and am now stuck at how to compute meta-analysis.
I am creating a forest plot for a meta-analysis and require assistance in adding a superscript after the Author/Year on the left side of the graph. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I had a valid idea for a meta-analysis involving multiple prospective & retrospective studies with no prior meta-analyses on the same chosen sub-population.
When confirming the validity of my idea on PROSPERO, I found out that another team registered a protocol involving the same exact idea in late 2021 (with the most recent update in early 2022).
So far, this team has produced no research output.
I got in touch with the correspondent on PROSPERO via e-mail to enquire about any recent updates but got no reply.
How could one approach such a scenario? I fear that while working on the meta-analysis, the other team may publish their study (with the same idea), which would result in the duplication of evidence.
Thank you beforehand.
Hi,
I am currently creating a meta-analysis on the effect of growth performance of pigs in response to dietary fiber content in experimental diets as well as the influence of a fiber enzyme supplement.
I am having trouble entering data collected from research articles and was hoping for some clarification.
Example article (Koo et al., 2017) - study used a 3x 2 factorial design where authors looked at 3 diets (diet A (complex 1), B (complex 2), C (simple)) and 2 levels of multicarbohydrase supplementation (0% or (-) and 1% (+)). The authors then reported the growth performance results as ADG, ADFI and G:F (picture posted here). In this case, I am just collecting the day 1 to 28 reported data. As you can see, the authors report growth performance points for 5 variables (Diet A,B,C and (-) and (+) multicarbohydrase levels)
In terms of dietary content, the authors just report the dietary content of each diet (A,B,C)
When I enter this collected data, I need to report the growth performance results in addition to the dietary content of the experimental diet used for that growth performance endpoint. For example, how do I know what experimental diet content is in the Multicarbohydrase (+) and (-) endpoints?
Since this is a 3 x 2 factorial design I was thinking there would be 6 treatments (Each diet with each enzyme level) but there are only 5 so how do I know which treatment has which dietary content?
Here is the paper I am referencing as well. -

For example, some forest graphs include both total and subtotal results.
What methods are recommended for synthesizing outcomes
from multiple studies, and why is meta-analysis often
preferred?
The topic can cover any area of this specialty.
Hi all!
I have a question & any help would be appreciated (especially Dr. Holger Steinmetz & Dr. Jan Antfolk).
Suppose we are conducting a Meta-analysis & looking at 2 Dichotomous outcomes. Outcome 1 is reported in 14 studies (all observational, no RCT) with different measures (OR= 5/14, RR= 2/14, PR= 2/14, % Raw data=5/14). Outcome 2 is reported in 3 studies (OR=1/3, HR=1/3, Raw data=1/3).
Which Effect size to use for each outcome & how to convert one into another?
Hi everyone, for some years now I've been interested in doing meta-analysis in my field of study. I am a botanist, who recently worked in seed biology. during my self-learning, I already knew how to do systematic reviews, but stuck there while I wanted to improve myself in meta-analysis.
Thus, I write to express my desire to reach everyone who may have experience in this topic and is willing to let me learn from their experience. thanks.
Hello everyone, Is it possible to get your recommendations on which meta-anlysis program I should be learning? R vs Revman vs CMA vs Stata
Hello everyone, Is it possible to get your recommendations regarding which meta analysis program i should be using? R vs Revman vs CMA or SPATA?
Is it possible to conduct a meta-analysis for a single group in the REVMAN program? If so, could you please provide guidance on where to find instructions for conducting this type of meta-analysis?"
I barely need this for meta-analysis in my study... but it cannot be downloaded from the server.
I am working on a meta-analysis on framing with cultural-level moderators (e.g. Hofstede dimensions including Individualism-Collectivism and Power Distance) and moderators based on findings in the literature (e.g. health behavior function, behavioral frequency). While the potential mechanisms and theoretical basis of moderations would be different with different moderators, they are highly correlated (r > 0.70, or V > 0.50 for two categorical moderators). What are the possible ways to address the potential confounds between these moderators *in the context* of a meta-analysis? Let's say I find support for moderations with both Moderator A (p < .001) and Moderator B, I am not sure how to know if "significant moderation" of B is due to strong correlations/confounding relationship with A, or if both moderators are really meaningful moderators. Thank you. Would appreciate if there is (ideally R) open data/code/example.
Dear Experts,
I have a question, I am analyzing data for meta-analysis, is this possible SMD greater than 1 for any study,
I have a study in my data indicate 2 .03 SMD.
I am wanting to perform a meta-analysis and some of the articles included only provide baseline and post-intervention mean and standard deviation values for the group. Hence, I´m wanting to calculate the mean and standard deviation of the difference between pre-intervention and post-intervention values within that group. I´ve attached an image to make the explanation easier: if I only have the information in the first 2 columns, is it possible to calculate the 3rd column?
I wonder if there is any way (in STATA or any other software) that this may be calculated.
Thank you very much in advance for your help.

Need advice on user-friendly tools to ease meta-analysis process of selecting eligible and fugitive studies
Dear Colleagues,
We are currently conducting a qualitative meta-analysis and looking for qualitative research that is focused on transgender, non-binary, and gender diverse people’s experiences of gender identity development and how their gender functions to support coping with minority stress as well as increasing resilience and flourishing. We are looking specifically at articles that focus on participants in the United States. We are contacting scholars to ask if they have authored or are aware of studies that may meet our inclusion criteria, particularly any new or unpublished studies. Our team will screen the articles to determine if they meet our inclusion criteria. If you know of any studies that may be relevant to our qualitative meta-analysis, please contact or send them to Kelsey Kehoe at kelsey.kehoe001@umb.edu.
Thank you!
Heidi Levitt & Kelsey Kehoe
I'm looking for good (freely-available) resources that guide statistical approaches for conducting meta-analyses; specifically, those addressing (1) which effect size statistic to use in different situations, (2) if and when different effect size statistics (e.g., mean difference, correlation coefficient, etc.) can be combined in a meta-analysis and when they should not be combined
Thanks!
Hello everyone,
I hope all thing is OK.i have a paper based on meta analysis, please let me know could you help me in statistical analysis of this paper?
Best regards
In light of Zhenzhen Pal et al.'s (2023) “Diagnostic Efficacy of Serological Antibody Detection Tests for Hepatitis Delta Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”, I was curious at how serological tests for Hepatitis Delta Virus affect the way we currently manage HDV co-infection with Hepatitis B Virus.
It is stated in the study titled "Diagnostic Efficacy of Serological Antibody Detection Tests for Hepatitis Delta Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" by Zhenzhen Pan et al. (2023) that hepatitis delta virus (HDV) is a blood-borne pathogen that relies on the envelope protein of hepatitis b virus (HBV) for the assembly and release of infectious virus particles. I am curious on why HDV is dependent on HBV and what are its key viral and host factors.