Meta‐analysis or best‐evidence synthesis?
- 1 August 1995
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
- Vol. 1 (1) , 29-36
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.1995.tb00005.x
Abstract
This article examines the usefulness of meta‐analysis, and articulates many of the criticisms that have been made of its workings. An attempt is made to outline the precautions that have to be taken before a scientifically useful and meaningful meta‐analysis can be carried out. The problems encountered include heterogeneity of samples, conditions, interventions and end‐points; narrow focus; curvilinearity of regression; lack of independence of determinants; synergistic interactions; contradictory experimental results. It is suggested that best‐evidence synthesis, or theorydirected analysis, might be a safer option.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Reply to comments on Lipsey and Wilson (1993).American Psychologist, 1995
- Meta-analysis squared—does it make sense?American Psychologist, 1995
- Meta-analysis as a means of discovery.American Psychologist, 1995
- The earth is round (p < .05).American Psychologist, 1994
- Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies?Psychological Bulletin, 1989
- A Matter of PrincipleEducational Researcher, 1986
- Psychological questionnaire score, cigarette smoking, and myocardial infarction: A continuing enigmaPreventive Medicine, 1983
- The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.Psychological Bulletin, 1979
- Meta-Analysis of Research on Class Size and AchievementEducational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1979
- Statistical significance in psychological research.Psychological Bulletin, 1968