Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29517004›Full record

ReviewNature2018

Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis.

Jessica Gurevitch, Julia Koricheva, Shinichi Nakagawa, Gavin Stewart

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 383 papers, 64 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
383citing papers in PubMed, 64 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

383 citing papers in PubMed, 64 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Nematicidal effects ofFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pathogenic characterization and drug resistance of neonatal sepsis in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

323 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jessica GurevitchDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794-5245, USA.
Julia KorichevaSchool of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK.
Shinichi NakagawaEvolution and Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia.
Gavin StewartSchool of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meta-analysis is the quantitative, scientific synthesis of research results. Since the term and modern approaches to research synthesis were first introduced in the 1970s, meta-analysis has had a revolutionary effect in many scientific fields, helping to establish evidence-based practice and to resolve seemingly contradictory research outcomes. At the same time, its implementation has engendered criticism and controversy, in some cases general and others specific to particular disciplines. Here we take the opportunity provided by the recent fortieth anniversary of meta-analysis to reflect on the accomplishments, limitations, recent advances and directions for future developments in the field of research synthesis.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicResearchAnimalsBiological EvolutionBiological Science DisciplinesEcologyHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st Century

Identifiers

PMID29517004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.