SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1

A Survey Study for The Comparison of Meta-Analysis Softwares

META ANALİZ YAZILIMLARININ KARŞILAŞTIRILMASINA İLİŞKİN BİR TARAMA ÇALIŞMASI

Mehmet Taha ESER
Pages
17–30
Publication Date
2022-02-20
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It can be said that these features make Jamovi advantageous over other software.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In recent years, meta-analysis studies have become a popular field of study in order to quantitatively analyze the results obtained from more than one study carried out independently from the same subject and to interpret the results from a holistic perspective.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Because of this, different licensed and open source software has been developed in the last 20 years.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It can be said that these features make Jamovi advantageous over other software.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Meta-AnalysiS · RStudio · Jamovi

Abstract

In recent years, meta-analysis studies have become a popular field of study in order to quantitatively analyze the results obtained from more than one study carried out independently from the same subject and to interpret the results from a holistic perspective. Because of this, different licensed and open source software has been developed in the last 20 years. With this study, it is aimed to compare the existing programs and software in terms of meta-analysis in terms of quantitative and qualitative aspects. For this purpose, the results obtained from Jamovi, CMA, RStudio and Meta-Essentials programs were compared within the determined criterias. As a result of filtering the 1906 studies obtained from databases in accordance with the flow diagram, the number of studies to be included in the meta-analysis was determined to be 32. As a result of the study, forest plots obtained from different programs do not differ according to the program used. In addition, the open source and free of R, Jamovi and Meta-Essentials programs have been determined as the superiority of the programs compared to CMA. According to the findings, Jamovi has much more test for heterogeneity compaired to the other softwares. At the same time, the number of model prediction options is much higher for Jamovi compared to Meta-Essentials and CMA. While other software does not provide any information regarding model fit index and information criterion, Jamovi offers a rich output in this regard. It can be said that these features make Jamovi advantageous over other software.

🔖

Cite This Article

ESER, M. T. (2022). A Survey Study for The Comparison of Meta-Analysis Softwares. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1, 17–30. https://ajindex.com/articles/386984

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Meta-analysis and its problems. Bmj, 309,789-792.
  2. Hunt, M. (1997). Making order of scientific chaos. In How Science Takes Stock New York, Russel Sage Foundation; 1-19.
  3. Bax, L, Yu, L. M, Ikeda, N., Moons, GM. K. (2007). A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies [electronic article], BMC Med Res Methodol, vol. 7 pg. 40 Normand, S. L. T. (1995). Meta-analysis software - a comparative review-DSTAT, version 1.10. Am Statistician 1995, 49, 298-309.
  4. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  5. Pearson, K. (1904). "Report on Certain Enteric Fever Inoculation Statis- tics," British Medical Journal, 3, 1243-1246
  6. Birge, R. T. (1932). The calculation of errors by the method of least squares. Physical Review, 16, 1-32.
  7. Egger, M., Davey Smith, G. (1997). Meta-analysis: Potentials and promise. British Medical Journal, 315(7119), 1371-1374.
  8. Egger, M., Davey Smith, G. (1998). Bias in location and selection of studies. British Medical Journal, 316(7124), 61-66.
  9. Freiman, J. A., Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., Kuebler, R. R. (1992). The importance of beta, the type II error, and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized controlled trial. In Bailar, J. C., Mosteller, F. (Eds.), Medical uses of statistics. (357-373)
  10. Boston, MA: NEJM Books. Fagard, R., Staessen, J., Thijs, L. (1996). Advantages and disadvantages of the meta-analysis approach. Journal of hypertension. Official journal of the International Society of Hypertension. 14. S9-12. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley. Harrer, M., Cuijpers, P., Furukawa, T.A, & Ebert, D. D. (2019). Doing Meta-Analysis in R: A Hands-on Guide. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2551803. Lipsey, M. W., David, B. W. (2001). Practical Meta-Analysis. Sage Publications, Inc. Pigott, T. (2012). Advances in Meta-Analysis. Springer. Egger, M., Davey Smith., G., Phillips, A. N. (1997). Meta-analysis: Principles and Procedures. British Medical Journal, 315(7121), 1533-1537.
  11. Fraenkel, Jack R. And Norman E. Wallen. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York. McGraw-Hill Companies. Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. Ankara: Bilim Kitap Kırtasiye Yayınevi.
  12. The jamovi project (2019). jamovi (Version 0.9) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org
  13. The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reportin