Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Sep 10:7:40.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-40.

A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies

Leon Bax, Ly-Mee Yu, Noriaki Ikeda, Karel G M Moons

A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies

Leon Bax et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Our objective was to systematically assess the differences in features, results, and usability of currently available meta-analysis programs.

Methods: Systematic review of software. We did an extensive search on the internet (Google, Yahoo, Altavista, and MSN) for specialized meta-analysis software. We included six programs in our review: Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA), MetAnalysis, MetaWin, MIX, RevMan, and WEasyMA. Two investigators compared the features of the software and their results. Thirty independent researchers evaluated the programs on their usability while analyzing one data set.

Results: The programs differed substantially in features, ease-of-use, and price. Although most results from the programs were identical, we did find some minor numerical inconsistencies. CMA and MIX scored highest on usability and these programs also have the most complete set of analytical features.

Conclusion: In consideration of differences in numerical results, we believe the user community would benefit from openly available and systematically updated information about the procedures and results of each program's validation. The most suitable program for a meta-analysis will depend on the user's needs and preferences and this report provides an overview that should be helpful in making a substantiated choice.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Hunt M. How Science Takes Stock. New York , Russel Sage Foundation; 1997. Making order of scientific chaos; pp. 1–19.
    1. Eysenck HJ. Meta-analysis and its problems. Bmj. 1994;309:789–792. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Normand SLT. Meta-analysis software - a comparative review -DSTAT, version 1.10. Am Statistician. 1995;49:298–309. doi: 10.2307/2684205. - DOI
    1. Egger M, Sterne JAC, Smith GD. Meta-analysis software. BMJ. 1998;316: Website only: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/archive/7126/7126ed9.htm.
    1. Sutton AJ, Lambert PC, Hellmich M, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Meta-analysis in practice: A critical review of available software. In: Berry DA, Stangl DK, editor. Meta-Analysis in Medicine and Health Policy. New York , Marcel Dekker; 2000.