Evaluation & the Health Professions

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hall, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Rosenthal, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hall, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Rosenthal, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 18, No. 4, 393-407 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/016327879501800404

Interpreting and Evaluating Meta-Analysis

Judith A. Hall

Northeastern University

Robert Rosenthal

Harvard University

This article offers some guidelines for interpreting and evaluating meta-analytic reviews of research. The fundamental goals of metaanalysis are to combine results across studies to yield an overall estimate of effect and to compare effects between studies in order to understand moderating factors. Suggestions are made for what readers should look for in a meta-analysis, and a discussion is provided of several issues that are not often explicitly addressed: choice of unit of analysis, fixed versus random effects, the meaning of heterogeneity, determination of when contrasts are appropriate, and the choice of measure of central tendency. We recommend that readers adopt a skeptical attitude about the results of meta-analysis, particularly when only complex analyses are reported.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin RehabilHome page
A. Meilink, B. Hemmen, H. Seelen, and G. Kwakkel
Impact of EMG-triggered neuromuscular stimulation of the wrist and finger extensors of the paretic hand after stroke: a systematic review of the literature
Clinical Rehabilitation, April 1, 2008; 22(4): 291 - 305.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ BehavHome page
M. S. Hwang, K. L. Yeagley, and R. Petosa
A Meta-Analysis of Adolescent Psychosocial Smoking Prevention Programs Published Between 1978 and 1997 in the United States
Health Educ Behav, December 1, 2004; 31(6): 702 - 719.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
N. Ensari, J. B. Kenworthy, L. Urban, C. J. Canales, E. Vasquez, D. Kim, and N. Miller
Negative Affect and Political Sensitivity in Crossed Categorization: Self-Reports versus EMG
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, January 1, 2004; 7(1): 55 - 75.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
D. L. Roter, J. A. Hall, and Y. Aoki
Physician Gender Effects in Medical Communication: A Meta-analytic Review
JAMA, August 14, 2002; 288(6): 756 - 764.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]