Chapter 9: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses

3,900 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Prevalence of problematic smartphone usage and associated mental health outcomes amongst children and young people: a systematic review, meta-analysis and GRADE of the evidence (2019, methodology): “Where study design, level of exposure of PSU, and outcomes were homogeneous, outcome data were included in a pooled random-effects meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenzsel method [26, 27].”
Exposure to traffic-related air pollution and risk of development of childhood asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (2017, methodology): “1 to suggest the presence of statistically significant heterogeneity (Deeks et al., 2011).”
Basics of meta‐analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity (2017, unknown): “In this limited case, I2 could be used to establish some broadly defined rules-of-thumb for small, moderate, and high levels of heterogeneity, and these are proffered in a chapter in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic reviews (Deeks et al., 2008).”
OpenMEE: Intuitive, open‐source software for meta‐analysis in ecology and evolutionary biology (2017, background): “…epidemiology, management, education, psychology and other social sciences, as well as ecology and evolution (E&E) (e.g. Glass, McGaw & Smith 1981; Agrawal & Srikant 1994; Deeks et al. 2008; Hillebrand & Car-dinale 2010; Koricheva, Gurevitch & Mengersen 2013; McKenzie et al. 2013; Lortie 2014).”