<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.2 20190208//EN"
                  "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="1.2" article-type="other">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id></journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Journal for Reproducibility in
Neuroscience</journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn publication-format="electronic">2670-3815</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>Publishers of Trial and Error</publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<title-group>
<article-title>A compact guide to the systematic review and
meta-analysis of the literature in neuroscience</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-8537-943X</contrib-id>
<name>
<surname>Bolzan</surname>
<given-names>Juliana</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-0"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-0627-530X</contrib-id>
<name>
<surname>Oliveira</surname>
<given-names>Cilene Lino de</given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-0"/>
</contrib>
<aff id="aff-0">
<institution-wrap>
<institution>Department of Physiological Sciences, Center of Biological
Sciences, Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC, Campus Trindade,
88040-900, Florianópolis - SC, Brazil. Post graduation Program in
Pharmacology, Center of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Santa
Catarina – UFSC, Campus Trindade, 88040-900, Florianópolis - SC,
Brazil</institution>
</institution-wrap>
</aff>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
<day>04</day>
<month>01</month>
<year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>2</volume>
<elocation-id>guide-systematic-review</elocation-id>
<permissions>
<license license-type="CC-BY-SA" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">
<license-p>Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
License</license-p>
</license>
</permissions>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://jrn.trialanderror.org/pub/guide-systematic-review">This pub is available from https://jrn.trialanderror.org/pub/guide-systematic-review</self-uri>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="abstract">
  <title><bold>Abstract</bold></title>
  <p>Critical appraisals of the literature may help to increase
  reproducibility in neuroscience. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
  are tools for neuroscientists to critically evaluate a large amount of
  knowledge in the research field. These methods involve individually
  simple decisions, which may become complex when considering the whole
  process. Strategies to organize the planning and implementation of the
  protocols minimize the workload. Here, we prepared a compact guide to
  assist neuroscientists willing to perform a systematic review and
  meta-analysis of the literature in neuroscience.</p>
  <p><bold>Keywords: </bold><italic>systematic review, meta-analysis,
  guidelines</italic></p>
  <graphic id="nsl5ae8ux36" mimetype="image" mime-subtype="png" xlink:href="https://assets.pubpub.org/zqt0ujuz/image-61691161317092.png" />
  <p></p>
  <p></p>
  <graphic id="nrbree3j3bo" mimetype="image" mime-subtype="png" xlink:href="https://assets.pubpub.org/pzrlppew/image-71691160815460.png" />
  <p></p>
  <p></p>
</sec>
<sec id="reviewers-comments">
  <title>Reviewer’s Comments</title>
  <p>[file element]</p>
</sec>
<sec id="references">
  <title>
  <bold>References</bold></title>
  <p>Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic Reviews and
  Meta-analysis: Understanding the Best Evidence in Primary Healthcare.
  Journal of family medicine and primary care. 2013 2(1), 9–14.</p>
  <p>Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of
  best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997, Mar
  1;126(5):376-80.</p>
  <p>Moller AM, Myles PS. What makes a good systematic review and
  meta-analysis? BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2016, v.17, n.4,
  Oct. P. 428–430.</p>
  <p>Wormald R, Evans J. What Makes Systematic Reviews Systematic and
  Why are They the Highest Level of Evidence? Ophthalmic Epidemiology.
  2018 25:1, 27-30.</p>
  <p>Delgado-Rodríguez M, Sillero-Arenas M. Systematic review and
  meta-analysis. Med Intensiva (Engl Ed). 2018, Oct;42(7):444-453.</p>
  <p>Bashir Y, Conlon KC. Step by step guide to do a systematic review
  and meta-analysis for medical professionals. Ir J Med Sci. 2018 187,
  447–452.</p>
  <p>Linares-espinós E, Hernández V, Domínguez-Escrig JL,
  Fernández-Pello S, Hevia V, Mayor J, Padilla-Fernández B, Ribal MJ.
  Methodology of a systematic review. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018
  Oct;42(8):499-506.</p>
  <p>Hooijmans CR, Rovers M, de Vries RB, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga
  M. An initiative to facilitate well-informed decision-making in
  laboratory animal research: report of the First International
  Symposium on Systematic Reviews in Laboratory Animal Science.
  Laboratory Animals. 2012 46(4), 356–357.</p>
  <p>Hansen H, Trifkovic N. Systematic Reviews: Questions, Methods and
  Usage. 2013.</p>
  <p>Vesterinen HM, Sena ES, Egan KJ, Hirst TC, Churolov L, Currie GL,
  Antonic A, Howells DW, Macleod MR. Meta-analysis of data from animal
  studies: a practical guide. J Neurosci Methods. 2014 Jan
  15;221:92-102. Erratum in: J Neurosci Methods. 2016 Feb 1;259:156.</p>
  <p>Bannach-Brown A, Hair K, Bahor Z, et al. Technological advances in
  preclinical meta-research. BMJ Open Science. 2021;5:e100131.</p>
  <p>Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. How to Do a Systematic Review: A
  Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews,
  Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. Annu Rev Psychol. 2019 Jan;
  4;70:747-770.</p>
  <p>Muka T, Glisic M, Milic J. et al. A 24-step guide on how to design,
  conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and
  meta-analysis in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020 35,
  49–60.</p>
  <p>Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred
  reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA
  statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.</p>
  <p>Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M,
  Shekelle P, Stewart LA, PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for
  systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P). Systematic
  reviews. 2015 4(1), 1.</p>
  <p>Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow
  CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for
  reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71.</p>
  <p>Dekkers OM, Vandenbroucke JP, Cevallos M, Renehan AG, Altman DG,
  Egger M. COSMOS-E: guidance on conducting systematic reviews and
  meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology. PLoS Med.
  2019;16(2):e1002742.</p>
  <p>Aromataris E, Riitano D. Constructing a search strategy and
  searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a
  systematic review. Am J Nurs. 2014 May;114(5):49-56.</p>
  <p>Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T. et al. Utilization of the PICO
  framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med
  Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7, 16.</p>
  <p>Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: The SPIDER Tool for
  Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. Qualitative Health Research.
  2012;22(10):1435-1443.</p>
  <p>Eriksen MB, Frandsen TF. The impact of patient, intervention,
  comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature
  search quality: a systematic review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018
  Oct;106(4):420-431.</p>
  <p>Davies KS. Formulating the evidence based practice question: a
  review of the frameworks. Evidence Based Library and Information
  Practice, 2011, 6(2), 75-80.</p>
  <p>Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
  Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2013.</p>
  <p>Furukawa T, Ogawa Y, Takeshima N, Hayasaka Y, Chen P, Cipriani A,
  Barbui C. Bupropion versus other antidepressive agents for depression
  [Cochrane Protocol]. PROSPERO 2015 CRD42015017732 Available from:
  https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42015017732</p>
  <p>Casarotto P, Cannarozzo C, Rubiolo A. A systematic review of the
  effect of voluntary exercise in brain plasticity in rats and mice.
  PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021250561 Available from:
  https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021250561</p>
  <p>Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga
  M, Langendam MW. SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC
  medical research methodology. 2014 14, 43.</p>
  <p>Huang W, Percie du Sert N, Vollert J, Rice ASC. General Principles
  of Preclinical Study Design: Good Research Practice in Non-Clinical
  Pharmacology and Biomedicine. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology.
  2019, 257.</p>
  <p>De Vries RBM, Hooijmans CR, Langendam MW, Luijk JV, Leenaars M,
  Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Wever KE. A protocol format for the preparation,
  registration and publication of systematic reviews of animal
  intervention studies. Evidence-based Preclinical Medicine. 2015
  August, 2(1).</p>
  <p>Lino de Oliveira C, Bolzan JA. Surget A, Belzung C. Do
  antidepressants promote neurogenesis in adult hippocampus? A
  systematic review and meta-analysis on naive rodents. Pharmacology
  &amp; Therapeutics. 2020 Jun, v. 210.</p>
  <p>Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch
  VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
  Interventions version 6.2 (updated February, 2021) [Internet]. 2021.
  Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.</p>
  <p>Arroyave WD, Mehta SS, Guha N, Schwingl P, Taylor KW., Glenn B,
  Radke EG, Vilahur N, Carreón T, Nachman RM, Lunn RM. Challenges and
  recommendations on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational
  epidemiologic studies in environmental and occupational health.
  Journal of exposure science &amp; environmental epidemiology. 2021
  31(1), 21–30.</p>
  <p>Hooijmans CR, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. A gold standard
  publication checklist to improve the quality of animal studies, to
  fully integrate the Three Rs, and to make systematic reviews more
  feasible. Altern Lab Anim. 2010 38 (2): 167-182.</p>
  <p>Ramos-Hryb AB, Bahor Z, McCann S, et al. Protocol for a systematic
  review and meta-analysis of data from preclinical studies employing
  forced swimming test: an update. BMJ Open Science. 2019;3:e000035.</p>
  <p>Bolzan JA, Lino de Oliveira C. Protocol for systematic review and
  meta-analysis of the evidence linking hippocampal neurogenesis to the
  effects of antidepressants on mood and behaviour. BMJ Open Science.
  2021;5:e100077.</p>
  <p>Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y
  Acad Sci. 1993 Dec 31; 703:125-33.</p>
  <p>Pollock A, Campbell P, Brunton G, Hunt H, Estcourt L. Selecting and
  implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar
  overviews. Systematic Reviews 2017a; 6: 145.</p>
  <p>Hohls JK, Konig H, Quirke E, Hajek A. Association between anxiety,
  depression and quality of life - a systematic review of evidence from
  longitudinal studies. PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018108008 Available from:
  https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018108008</p>
  <p>Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I,
  Cates CJ, Cheng H-Y, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Hernán MA, Hopewell S,
  Hróbjartsson A, Junqueira DR, Jüni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T,
  McAleenan A, Reeves BC, Shepperd S, Shrier I, Stewart LA, Tilling K,
  White IR, Whiting PF, Higgins JPT. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing
  risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ. 2019; 366: l4898.</p>
  <p>Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D,
  Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, Henry DA. AMSTAR 2: a critical
  appraisal tool for systematic reviews thatinclude randomized or
  non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017
  Sep 21;358: j4008.</p>
  <p>Pérez J, Díaz J, Garcia-Martin J, Tabuenca B. Systematic literature
  reviews in software engineering—Enhancement of the study selection
  process using Cohen’s kappa statistic. Journal of Systems and
  Software, 2020 168, 110657.</p>
  <p>Galindo L, Oliveira Neto OB, Pinheiro IL, Silva RPB, Correia L.
  Effects of environmental enrichment as strategy for ameliorate
  behavioral effects of social isolation: preclinical systematic review
  and meta-analysis. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020200881 Available from:
  https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020200881</p>
  <p>Van Praag D, Maas A, Wilson L, Polinder S, Cnossen M, Synnot A.
  Posttraumatic stress disorder after civilian traumatic brain injury: a
  systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence rates. PROSPERO 2016
  CRD42016029956 Available from:
  https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42016029956</p>
  <p>Eckert F, Triches F, Costa J, Lino de Oliveira C. Antidepressant
  treatment and behavior responses in Drosophila melanogaster: a
  systematic review and metanalysis. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020225423
  Available from:
  https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020225423</p>
  <p>Durlak JA. How to Select, Calculate, and Interpret Effect Sizes,
  Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 2009 Oct, 34:9; 917–928.</p>
  <p>Soflau R, Fodor L, Georgescu R, Cuijpers P, Cristea I. A protocol
  for an individual patient data meta-analysis comparing cognitive
  behavioral therapy with control conditions for anxiety disorders.
  PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020178759 Available from:
  https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020178759</p>
  <p>Husain I, Cullen C, Umer M, Bonato S. Efficacy and acceptability of
  pharmacological treatments of anxiety symptoms in bipolar disorder: a
  systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020188875
  Available from:
  https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020188875</p>
  <p>Haidich AB. Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia. 2010
  14(Suppl 1), 29–37.</p>
  <p>Valentine JC, Pigott TD, Rothstein H. How Many Studies Do You Need?
  A Primer on Statistical Power for Meta-Analysis. Journal of
  Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 2010 June 35(2):215-247.</p>
  <p>Griffin JW. MetapoweR: an R package for computing meta-analytic
  statistical power. R package (Version: 0.2.2) [Internet]. 2020.
  Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=metapower.</p>
  <p>Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Introduction to
  Meta-Analysis. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley &amp; Sons.
  2009.</p>
  <p>McFadzean J, Monson JP, Watson JD, Coakley JH. The dilemma of the
  incapacitated patient who has previously refused consent for surgery.
  BMJ. 1997; 315:1530–2.</p>
  <p>DeVito NJ, Goldacre B. Catalogue of bias: publication bias. BMJ
  evidence-based Medicine, 2019 24(2), 53-54.</p>
  <p>Duval S, Tweedie R. A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of
  Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis, Journal of the
  American Statistical Association. 2000 95:449, 89-98.</p>
  <p>Shi L, Lin L. The trim-and-fill method for publication bias:
  practical guidelines and recommendations based on a large database of
  meta-analyses. Medicine. 2019 98(23), e15987.</p>
  <p>Dias S, Caldwell DM. Network meta-analysis explained. Arch Dis
  Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2019, Jan;104(1):F8-F12.</p>
  <p>Pozza A, Veale D, Marazziti D, Albert U, Delgadillo J, Grassi G,
  Prestia D, Dèttore D. “Sex and the OCDity”: sexual dysfunction and
  satisfaction in obsessive-compulsive disorder: protocol for a
  systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019132264
  Available from:
  <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019132264" xlink:title="null">https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019132264</ext-link>
  </p>
  <p>Santos JF, Brito IRR, Melo IS, Bueno NB, Araujo LA, Castro O.
  &quot;Psychoactive drugs and the underlying mechanisms that affect the
  normal development of Drosophila melanogaster: A Systematic Review and
  meta-analysis&quot;. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020146823 Available from:
  <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020146823" xlink:title="null">https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020146823</ext-link>
  </p>
  <p>Did a change in Nature journals’ editorial policy for life sciences
  research improve reporting? BMJ Open Science 2019;3:e000035.</p>
  <p>Álvarez-Bueno C, Pesce C, Cavero-Redondo I. Association of physical
  activity with cognition, metacognition and academic performance in
  children and adolescents: a protocol for systematic review and
  meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2016;6: e011065.</p>
  <p>Suurmond R, van Rhee H, Hak T. Introduction, comparison, and
  validation of Meta-Essentials: A free and simple tool for
  meta-analysis. Res Syn Meth. 2017; 8: 537– 553.</p>
  <p>Lajeunesse MJ. Facilitating systematic reviews, data extraction and
  meta‐analysis with the metagear package for R (Version: 0.7). Methods
  in Ecology and Evolution, 2016 7(3), 323-330.</p>
  <p>Rinker T, Kurkiewicz D, Hughitt K, Wang A, Aden-Buie G, Burk L.
  Package Management Tool, package pacman (Version: 0.5.1). 2019.</p>
  <p>Qi X, Yang M, Ren W, Jia J, Wang J, Han G, Fan D. Find duplicates
  among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Databases in systematic
  review. PLoS One. 2013 Aug 20;8(8):e71838.</p>
  <p>Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and
  mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210.</p>
  <p>Elmagarmid A, Fedorowicz Z, Hammady H, Ilyas I, Khabsa M, Ouzzani
  M. Rayyan: a systematic reviews web app for exploring and filtering
  searches for eligible studies for Cochrane Reviews. In:
  Evidence-Informed Publich Health: Opportunities and Challenges.
  Abstracts of the 22nd Cochrane Colloquium. 2014 Sep 21-26.</p>
  <p>Olofsson H, Brolund A, Hellberg C, Silverstein R, Stenstrom K,
  Osterberg M, Dagerhamn J. Can abstract screening workload be reduced
  using text mining? User experiences of the tool Rayyan. Research
  Synthesis Methods. 2017;8(3):275–80.</p>
  <p>Wang Q, Liao J, Lapata M, Macleod M. Risk of bias assessment in
  preclinical literature using natural language processing. Res Synth
  Methods. 2021 Oct 28. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1533. Epub ahead of print.
  PMID: 34709718.</p>
  <p>Li TJ, Vedula SS, Hadar N, Parkin C, Lau J, Dickersin K.
  Innovations in data collection, management, and archiving for
  systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine 2015; 162:
  287-294.</p>
  <p>Pick JL, Nakagawa S, Noble DW. “Reproducible, flexible and high
  throughput data extraction from primary literature: The metaDigitise R
  package.” BioRxiv. 2018 1–25.</p>
  <p>Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor
  package (Version 2.4-0). Journal of Statistical Software, v.36, n.3,
  p.1-48, 2010.</p>
  <p>Schwarzer L, Carpenter JR, Rücker L. Meta-análise com R, use R!
  Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2015.</p>
  <p>Cochrane Informatics and Knowledge Management Department. In:
  RevMan 5.3. [Internet]. 2014. Available from:
  https://community.cochrane.org/help/tools-and-software/revman-5.</p>
  <p>Wallace BC, Lajeunesse MJ, Dietz G, Dahabreh IJ, Trikalinos TA,
  Schmid CH, Gurevitch J. OpenMEE: Intuitive, open-source software for
  meta-analysis in ecology and evolutionary biology. Methods in Ecology
  and Evolution, 2016.</p>
  <p>Schwarzer L, Carpenter JR, Rücker L. Meta-análise com R, use R!
  Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2015.</p>
  <p>Palmer TM, Sterne JAC. Meta-analysis in Stata: An Updated
  Collection from the Stata Journal. Stata Press. 2016.</p>
  <p>Cortese S, Kelly C, Chabernaud C, Proal E, Di Martino A, Milham MP,
  Castellanos FX. Toward systems neuroscience of ADHD: a meta-analysis
  of 55 fMRI studies. American Journal of Psychiatry, 2012 169(10),
  1038-1055.</p>
  <p>Itoh Y, Arnold AP. Are females more variable than males in gene
  expression? Meta-analysis of microarray datasets. Biology of sex
  Differences, 2015, 6(1), 1-9.</p>
  <p>Becker JB, Prendergast BJ, Liang JW. Female rats are not more
  variable than male rats: a meta-analysis of neuroscience studies.
  Biology of sex differences, 2016 7(1), 1-7.</p>
  <p>Watzlawick R, Rind J, Sena ES, Brommer B, Zhang T, Kopp MA, Schwab
  JM. Olfactory ensheathing cell transplantation in experimental spinal
  cord injury: effect size and reporting bias of 62 experimental
  treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS biology, 2016
  14(5), e1002468.</p>
  <p>Heinzel JC, Nguyen MQ, Kefalianakis L, Prahm C, Daigeler A, Hercher
  D, Kolbenschlag J. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies
  comparing muscle-in-vein conduits with autologous nerve grafts for
  nerve reconstruction. Scientific reports, 2021 11(1), 1-12.</p>
  <p>McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): An
  R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments
  (Version 0.3.0). Res Synth Methods. 2021 Jan;12(1):55-61. doi:
  10.1002/jrsm.1411. Epub 2020 May 6. PMID: 32336025.</p>
  <p>Ried K. Interpreting and understanding meta-analysis graphs: a
  practical guide. Australian family physician, 2006 35(8).</p>
  <p>Harbord RM, Higgins JPT. Meta-Regression in Stata. The Stata
  Journal. 2008;8(4):493-519.</p>
  <p>Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J,
  Higgins JP. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot
  asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Bmj, 2011
  343.</p>
  <p>Sedgwick P. Meta-analyses: how to read a funnel plot. Bmj, 2013
  346.</p>
  <p>Cohen J. The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological
  research: a review. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1962, Sep;65:145-53.</p>
  <p>Sawilowsky RM. New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern
  Applied Statistical Methods, 2009 8, 26.</p>
  <p>Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, Carlin JB, Poole C, Goodman SN,
  Altman DG. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and
  power: a guide to misinterpretations. European journal of
  epidemiology. 2016, 31(4), 337–350.</p>
  <p>Sena ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PMW, Howells DW, Macleod MR.
  Publication Bias in Reports of Animal Stroke Studies Leads to Major
  Overstatement of Efficacy. PLoS Biol 2010 8(3): e1000344.</p>
  <p>Ramos-Hryb AB, Harris C, Aighewi O, Lino-de-Oliveira C. How would
  publication bias distort the estimated effect size of prototypic
  antidepressants in the forced swim test? Neuroscience &amp;
  Biobehavioral Reviews. 2018, 92, 192-194.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
</back>
</article>