Metan: Fixed- and Random-Effects Meta-Analysis

1,001 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.

Black Carbon as an Additional Indicator of the Adverse Health Effects of Airborne Particles Compared with PM10 and PM2.5 (2011, methodology): “We calculated summary fixed and random effects estimates using the metan procedure in STATA (version 11.2; StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA), as described by Harris et al. (2008).”
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (2015, methodology): “Random effects meta-analysis was conducted using the metan package in Stata (Harris et al., 2008).”
Breastfeeding and maternal health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2015, methodology): “Stata J 2008; 8: 3–28.”
Advanced maternal age and adverse pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2017, methodology): “Meta-analysis was conducted using STATA (Version 13, StataCorp, Texas, USA) using the metan, meta-regression and meta-bias commands [19] Random effects meta-analysis was performed in view of the anticipated heterogeneity between the studies.”
Meta-Analysis in Stata: An Updated Collection from the Stata Journal (2015, methodology): “The main Stata meta-analysis command metan has been widely used by researchers and, according to Google Scholar, has to date been cited by over 300 articles (adding the citations for Bradburn, Deeks, and Altman [1998], Harris et al. [2008], and its listing on the Statistical Software Components arch”