Editing Meta-analysis (section)

==History==

The term "meta-analysis" was coined in 1976 by the statistician [[Gene V. Glass|Gene Glass]],<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |vauthors=Shadish WR, Lecy JD |date=September 2015 |title=The meta-analytic big bang |journal=Research Synthesis Methods |volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=246–264 |doi=10.1002/jrsm.1132 |pmid=26212600 |s2cid=5416879}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{cite journal |vauthors=Glass GV |date=September 2015 |title=Meta-analysis at middle age: a personal history |journal=Research Synthesis Methods |volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=221–231 |doi=10.1002/jrsm.1133 |pmid=26355796 |s2cid=30083129}}</ref> who stated ''"Meta-analysis refers to the analysis of analyses"''.<ref name="Glass">{{cite journal |vauthors=Glass GV |year=1976 |title=Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research |journal=Educational Researcher |volume=5 |issue=10 |pages=3–8 |doi=10.3102/0013189X005010003 |s2cid=3185455}}</ref> Glass's work aimed at describing aggregated measures of relationships and effects.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hunt |first=Morton |title=How science takes stock: the story of meta-analysis |publisher=Russell Sage Foundation |year=1997 |edition=1st |location=New York, New York, United States of America |language=en-US}}</ref> While Glass is credited with authoring the first modern meta-analysis, a paper published in 1904 by the statistician [[Karl Pearson]] in the ''[[British Medical Journal]]''<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors= |date=November 1904 |title=Report on Certain Enteric Fever Inoculation Statistics |journal=British Medical Journal |volume=2 |issue=2288 |pages=1243–1246 |doi=10.1136/bmj.2.2288.1243 |pmc=2355479 |pmid=20761760}}</ref> collated data from several studies of typhoid inoculation and is seen as the first time a meta-analytic approach was used to aggregate the outcomes of multiple clinical studies.<ref name="Nordmann2012">{{cite journal |vauthors=Nordmann AJ, Kasenda B, Briel M |date=9 March 2012 |title=Meta-analyses: what they can and cannot do |journal=[[Swiss Medical Weekly]] |volume=142 |pages=w13518 |doi=10.4414/smw.2012.13518 |pmid=22407741 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=O'Rourke K |date=December 2007 |title=An historical perspective on meta-analysis: dealing quantitatively with varying study results |journal=Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine |volume=100 |issue=12 |pages=579–582 |doi=10.1177/0141076807100012020 |pmc=2121629 |pmid=18065712}}</ref> Numerous other examples of early meta-analyses can be found including occupational aptitude testing,<ref>Ghiselli, E. E. (1955). The measurement of occupational aptitude. ''University of California Publications in Psychology, 8,'' 101–216.</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ghiselli |first=Edwin E. |date=1973 |title=The Validity of Aptitude Tests in Personnel Selection |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1973.tb01150.x |journal=Personnel Psychology |language=en |volume=26 |issue=4 |pages=461–477 |doi=10.1111/j.1744-6570.1973.tb01150.x |issn=0031-5826}}</ref> and agriculture.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Yates |first1=F. |last2=Cochran |first2=W. G. |date=1938 |title=The analysis of groups of experiments |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0021859600050978/type/journal_article |journal=The Journal of Agricultural Science |language=en |volume=28 |issue=4 |pages=556–580 |doi=10.1017/S0021859600050978 |s2cid=86619593 |issn=0021-8596}}</ref>

The first model meta-analysis was published in 1978 on the effectiveness of psychotherapy outcomes by [[Mary Lee Smith]] and [[Gene V. Glass|Gene Glass]].<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Smith |first1=Mary L. |last2=Glass |first2=Gene V. |date=1977 |title=Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0003-066X.32.9.752 |journal=American Psychologist |language=en |volume=32 |issue=9 |pages=752–760 |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.32.9.752 |pmid=921048 |s2cid=43326263 |issn=1935-990X}}</ref> After publication of their article there was pushback on the usefulness and validity of meta-analysis as a tool for evidence synthesis. The first example of this was by [[Hans Eysenck]] who in a 1978 article in response to the work done by Mary Lee Smith and Gene Glass called meta-analysis an "exercise in mega-silliness".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Eysenck |first=H. J. |date=1978 |title=An exercise in mega-silliness. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0003-066X.33.5.517.a |journal=American Psychologist |language=en |volume=33 |issue=5 |pages=517 |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.33.5.517.a |issn=1935-990X}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last1=Sharpe |first1=Donald |last2=Poets |first2=Sarena |date=2020 |title=Meta-analysis as a response to the replication crisis. |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/cap0000215 |journal=Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne |language=en |volume=61 |issue=4 |pages=377–387 |doi=10.1037/cap0000215 |s2cid=225384392 |issn=1878-7304}}</ref> Later Eysenck would refer to meta-analysis as "statistical alchemy".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Eysenck |first=H.J. |date=1995 |title=Meta-analysis or best-evidence synthesis? |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2753.1995.tb00005.x |journal=Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice |language=en |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=29–36 |doi=10.1111/j.1365-2753.1995.tb00005.x |pmid=9238555 |issn=1356-1294}}</ref> Despite these criticisms the use of meta-analysis has only grown since its modern introduction. By 1991 there were 334 published meta-analyses;<ref name=":4" /> this number grew to 9,135 by 2014.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ioannidis |first=John P.A. |date=2016 |title=The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses |journal=The Milbank Quarterly |language=en |volume=94 |issue=3 |pages=485–514 |doi=10.1111/1468-0009.12210 |issn=0887-378X |pmc=5020151 |pmid=27620683}}</ref>

The field of meta-analysis expanded greatly since the 1970s and touches multiple disciplines including psychology, medicine, and ecology.<ref name=":0" /> Further the more recent creation of evidence synthesis communities has increased the cross pollination of ideas, methods, and the creation of software tools across disciplines.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Vandvik PO, Brandt L |date=July 2020 |title=Future of Evidence Ecosystem Series: Evidence ecosystems and learning health systems: why bother? |journal=Journal of Clinical Epidemiology |volume=123 |pages=166–170 |doi=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.02.008 |pmid=32145365 |s2cid=212629387}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Cartabellotta A, Tilson JK |date=June 2019 |title=The ecosystem of evidence cannot thrive without efficiency of knowledge generation, synthesis, and translation |journal=Journal of Clinical Epidemiology |volume=110 |pages=90–95 |doi=10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.01.008 |pmid=30708174 |s2cid=73415319}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |display-authors=6 |vauthors=Haddaway NR, Bannach-Brown A, Grainger MJ, Hamilton WK, Hennessy EA, Keenan C, Pritchard CC, Stojanova J |date=June 2022 |title=The evidence synthesis and meta-analysis in R conference (ESMARConf): levelling the playing field of conference accessibility and equitability |journal=Systematic Reviews |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=113 |doi=10.1186/s13643-022-01985-6 |pmc=9164457 |pmid=35659294 |doi-access=free}}</ref>