Meta-regression analyses usually focus on estimating and testing differences in average effect sizes between individual levels of each meta-regression covariate in turn. These metrics are useful but have limitations: they consider each covariate individually, rather than in combination, and they characterize only the mean of a potentially…

There exists a variety of interval estimators for the overall treatment effect in a random-effects meta-analysis. A recent literature review summarizing existing methods suggested that in most situations, the Hartung-Knapp/Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) method was preferable. However, a quantitative comparison of those methods in a common simulation study…

It is now widely accepted that the standard inferential toolkit used by the scientific research community--null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST)--is not fit for purpose. Yet despite the threat posed to the scientific enterprise, there is no agreement concerning alternative approaches for evidence assessment. This lack of consensus reflects…

Statistical inference is problematic in the common situation in meta-analysis where the random effects model is fitted to just a handful of studies. In particular, the asymptotic theory of maximum likelihood provides a poor approximation, and Bayesian methods are sensitive to the prior specification. Hence, less efficient, but easily computed and…

Researchers may have multiple motivations for combining disparate pieces of evidence in a meta-analysis, such as generalizing experimental results or increasing the power to detect an effect that a single study is not able to detect. However, while in meta-analysis, the main question may be simple, the structure of evidence available to answer it…