In statistics, a metaanalysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses. The first metaanalysis was performed by Karl Pearson in 1904, in an attempt to overcome the problem of reduced statistical power in studies with small sample sizes; analyzing the results from a group of studies can allow more accurate data analysis.
Although metaanalysis is widely used in evidencebased medicine today, a metaanalysis of a medical treatment was not published until 1955. In the 1970s, more sophisticated analytical techniques were introduced in educational research, starting with the work of Gene V. Glass, Frank L. Schmidt, and John E. Hunter.
The online Oxford English Dictionary lists the first usage of the term in the statistical sense as 1976 by Glass. The statistical theory surrounding metaanalysis was greatly advanced by the work of Larry V. Hedges, Ingram Olkin, John E. Hunter, and Frank L. Schmidt.
Because the results from different studies investigating different independent variables are measured on different scales, the dependent variable in a metaanalysis is some standard measure of effect size. To describe the results of comparative experiments the usual effect size indicator is the standardized mean difference (d) which is the standard score equivalent to the difference between means, or an odds ratio if the outcome of the experiments is a dichotomous variable (success versus failure). A metaanalysis can be performed on studies that describe their findings in correlation coefficients, as for example, studies of the familiar relationship of intelligence. In these cases, the correlation itself is the indicator of the effect size. Nor is the method restricted to situations in which one or more variables is properly referred to as "dependent." For example, a metaanalysis could be performed on a collection of studies each of which attempts to estimate the incidence of lefthandedness in various groups of people.
Results from studies are combined using different approaches. One approach frequently used in metaanalysis in health care research is termed 'inverse variance method'. The average effect size across all studies is computed as a weighted mean, whereby the weights are equal to the inverse variance of each studies' effect estimator. Larger studies and studies with less random variation are given greater weight than smaller studies.
Modern metaanalysis does more than just combine the effect sizes of a set of studies. It tests if the studies' outcomes show more variation than the variation that is expected because of sampling different research participants. If that is the case, study characteristics such as measurement instrument used, population sampled, or aspects of the studies' design are coded. These characteristics are then used as predictor variables to analyze the excess variation in the effect sizes. Some methodological weaknesses in studies can be corrected statistically. For example, it is possible to correct effect sizes or correlations for the downward bias due to measurement error or restriction on score ranges.
A weakness of the method is that sources of bias are not controlled by the method. A good metaanalysis of badly designed studies will still result in bad statistics. Robert Slavin has argued that only methodologically sound studies should be included in a metaanalysis, a practice he calls 'best evidence metaanalysis'. Other metaanalysts would include weaker studies, and add a studylevel predictor variable that reflects the methodological quality of the studies to examine the effect of study quality on the effect size.
Note: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Metaanalysis".
