GITNUXREPORT 2025

Meta Analysis Statistics

Meta-analyses significantly enhance research, decision-making, and publication growth worldwide.

Jannik Linder

Co-Founder of Gitnux, specialized in content and tech since 2016.

First published: April 29, 2025

Our Commitment to Accuracy

Rigorous fact-checking • Reputable sources • Regular updatesLearn more

Statistic 1

Meta-analysis-based clinical guidelines are utilized in over 75 countries worldwide, influencing healthcare policies globally

Statistic 2

Approximately 65% of systematic reviews incorporate meta-analysis techniques

Statistic 3

In healthcare research, meta-analyses improve decision-making accuracy by up to 20%

Statistic 4

The most common statistical model used in meta-analyses is the random-effects model, accounting for approximately 70% of analyses

Statistic 5

The median effect size in meta-analyses across disciplines is approximately 0.4 (Cohen's d)

Statistic 6

Meta-analysis enhances statistical power by aggregating data, often increasing power of individual studies by up to 4 times

Statistic 7

The average sample size of studies included in meta-analyses is around 150 participants

Statistic 8

The median heterogeneity (I² statistic) in biomedical meta-analyses is approximately 50%, indicating moderate variability among studies

Statistic 9

Reviews show that meta-analyses with more than 10 studies tend to yield more stable effect estimates

Statistic 10

The most common bias correction method is trim-and-fill, used in approximately 35% of meta-analyses with publication bias concerns

Statistic 11

Meta-analysis methodology is increasingly incorporated into high school and undergraduate curricula to enhance research literacy

Statistic 12

The integration of machine learning techniques in meta-analysis is a developing field, with around 10% of recent studies applying such methods for study selection and bias detection

Statistic 13

The use of forest plots in meta-analyses is almost universal, with around 95% of publications including this visualization tool

Statistic 14

About 20% of meta-analyses experience issues with heterogeneity, influencing the pooled effect size

Statistic 15

Publication bias is detected in roughly 25% of meta-analyses, often influencing the overall conclusions

Statistic 16

Only about 55% of meta-analyses report conducting sensitivity analyses, which assess robustness of results

Statistic 17

Less than 10% of systematic reviews include grey literature, which can lead to publication bias in meta-analyses

Statistic 18

The rate of correction or retraction of meta-analyses due to methodological errors is approximately 2%, highlighting quality control issues

Statistic 19

Meta-analyses with high heterogeneity (I² > 75%) are less likely to influence clinical guidelines, according to recent surveys

Statistic 20

About 70% of meta-analyses are funded by academic grants, with industry funding accounting for approximately 10%, affecting bias assessments

Statistic 21

Meta-analyses contribute to over 30% of the publications in biomedical research

Statistic 22

The number of published meta-analyses has increased by over 40% in the last decade

Statistic 23

The median number of studies included in a meta-analysis is 8

Statistic 24

The use of meta-analysis in psychology has grown by over 50% in the past 15 years

Statistic 25

The average duration to complete a meta-analysis is approximately 6 to 12 months

Statistic 26

Meta-analyses are most frequently published in journals such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and PLOS ONE

Statistic 27

The use of network meta-analysis has increased by over 75% in the last decade, particularly in medical research

Statistic 28

Meta-analyses utilizing individual participant data (IPD) are considered the gold standard and account for about 10% of all meta-analyses

Statistic 29

In environmental sciences, meta-analyses have helped synthesize data from over 2,000 studies globally

Statistic 30

Publication of meta-analyses increased nearly 3-fold in the last 20 years across all scientific fields

Statistic 31

The percentage of meta-analyses addressing clinical interventions is around 60%, with behavioral and social sciences following closely

Statistic 32

The median number of citations per meta-analysis publication is approximately 25, indicating its influence in academic circles

Statistic 33

Meta-analyses in pharmacology have become increasingly common, now representing about 40% of drug efficacy studies

Statistic 34

The Cochrane Collaboration has produced over 10,000 systematic reviews incorporating meta-analysis as of 2023

Statistic 35

Use of Bayesian methods in meta-analysis has grown by approximately 50% over the past decade, especially in healthcare decision modeling

Statistic 36

The average time from protocol registration to publication of a meta-analysis is roughly 9 months

Statistic 37

Multi-disciplinary meta-analyses, combining data from various fields, now constitute around 15% of all published analyses

Statistic 38

The predominant publication language of meta-analyses is English, accounting for over 85%, with increasing contributions from Chinese and Spanish-language journals

Statistic 39

The highest impact factor journals publishing meta-analyses include The BMJ, JAMA, and The Lancet, each with impact factors exceeding 30

Statistic 40

The median number of keywords used in meta-analysis publications is around 7, facilitating discoverability and indexing

Statistic 41

Meta-analyses focused on mental health topics have increased by over 65% in recent years, indicating growing research attention

Statistic 42

The average citation half-life of meta-analysis articles is approximately 7 years, suggesting sustained relevance over time

Statistic 43

Meta-analysis research productivity varies significantly across countries, with the USA, China, and the UK producing the highest number of publications

Statistic 44

The percentage of open access meta-analyses has increased to about 55% since the implementation of open access mandates, boosting dissemination

Statistic 45

The average number of authors per meta-analysis paper is 4.2, reflecting collaborative research efforts

Statistic 46

The median p-value threshold reported in meta-analyses is <0.05, aligning with standard significance criteria

Statistic 47

The global market size for meta-analysis software was valued at $250 million in 2022

Statistic 48

85% of meta-analyses use statistical software like RevMan or Stata

Statistic 49

The use of open-source meta-analysis tools, like Meta-Essentials, has increased by over 60% in academic research since 2015

Slide 1 of 49

Sources

Our Reports have been cited by:

Trust Badges - Publications that have cited our reports

Key Highlights

Meta-analyses contribute to over 30% of the publications in biomedical research
The global market size for meta-analysis software was valued at $250 million in 2022
Approximately 65% of systematic reviews incorporate meta-analysis techniques
The number of published meta-analyses has increased by over 40% in the last decade
In healthcare research, meta-analyses improve decision-making accuracy by up to 20%
The most common statistical model used in meta-analyses is the random-effects model, accounting for approximately 70% of analyses
The median number of studies included in a meta-analysis is 8
About 20% of meta-analyses experience issues with heterogeneity, influencing the pooled effect size
The use of meta-analysis in psychology has grown by over 50% in the past 15 years
Publication bias is detected in roughly 25% of meta-analyses, often influencing the overall conclusions
The average duration to complete a meta-analysis is approximately 6 to 12 months
85% of meta-analyses use statistical software like RevMan or Stata
Meta-analyses are most frequently published in journals such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and PLOS ONE

Did you know that meta-analyses now constitute over 30% of biomedical research publications and have seen a staggering 40% increase over the past decade, revolutionizing how scientists synthesize data and inform healthcare decisions worldwide?

Disciplinary Applications and Impact

Meta-analysis-based clinical guidelines are utilized in over 75 countries worldwide, influencing healthcare policies globally

Disciplinary Applications and Impact Interpretation

With their global reach spanning over 75 countries, meta-analysis-based clinical guidelines serve as the international compass guiding evidence-based healthcare decisions worldwide.

Methodologies and Statistical Models

Approximately 65% of systematic reviews incorporate meta-analysis techniques
In healthcare research, meta-analyses improve decision-making accuracy by up to 20%
The most common statistical model used in meta-analyses is the random-effects model, accounting for approximately 70% of analyses
The median effect size in meta-analyses across disciplines is approximately 0.4 (Cohen's d)
Meta-analysis enhances statistical power by aggregating data, often increasing power of individual studies by up to 4 times
The average sample size of studies included in meta-analyses is around 150 participants
The median heterogeneity (I² statistic) in biomedical meta-analyses is approximately 50%, indicating moderate variability among studies
Reviews show that meta-analyses with more than 10 studies tend to yield more stable effect estimates
The most common bias correction method is trim-and-fill, used in approximately 35% of meta-analyses with publication bias concerns
Meta-analysis methodology is increasingly incorporated into high school and undergraduate curricula to enhance research literacy
The integration of machine learning techniques in meta-analysis is a developing field, with around 10% of recent studies applying such methods for study selection and bias detection
The use of forest plots in meta-analyses is almost universal, with around 95% of publications including this visualization tool

Methodologies and Statistical Models Interpretation

Meta-analyses, now a cornerstone of evidence synthesis, boost decision-making accuracy by up to 20% and serve as a statistical megaphone, aggregating modest study sizes into robust conclusions, while evolving alongside machine learning and education to sharpen the scientific lens.

Quality, Bias, and Challenges

About 20% of meta-analyses experience issues with heterogeneity, influencing the pooled effect size
Publication bias is detected in roughly 25% of meta-analyses, often influencing the overall conclusions
Only about 55% of meta-analyses report conducting sensitivity analyses, which assess robustness of results
Less than 10% of systematic reviews include grey literature, which can lead to publication bias in meta-analyses
The rate of correction or retraction of meta-analyses due to methodological errors is approximately 2%, highlighting quality control issues
Meta-analyses with high heterogeneity (I² > 75%) are less likely to influence clinical guidelines, according to recent surveys
About 70% of meta-analyses are funded by academic grants, with industry funding accounting for approximately 10%, affecting bias assessments

Quality, Bias, and Challenges Interpretation

Despite their stature as the gold standard of evidence synthesis, meta-analyses often wrestle with heterogeneity and publication bias, with only just over half testing their results' robustness, thereby reminding us that even in the realm of "meta," there's still much to scrutinize before findings influence clinical practice.

Research and Publication Trends

Meta-analyses contribute to over 30% of the publications in biomedical research
The number of published meta-analyses has increased by over 40% in the last decade
The median number of studies included in a meta-analysis is 8
The use of meta-analysis in psychology has grown by over 50% in the past 15 years
The average duration to complete a meta-analysis is approximately 6 to 12 months
Meta-analyses are most frequently published in journals such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and PLOS ONE
The use of network meta-analysis has increased by over 75% in the last decade, particularly in medical research
Meta-analyses utilizing individual participant data (IPD) are considered the gold standard and account for about 10% of all meta-analyses
In environmental sciences, meta-analyses have helped synthesize data from over 2,000 studies globally
Publication of meta-analyses increased nearly 3-fold in the last 20 years across all scientific fields
The percentage of meta-analyses addressing clinical interventions is around 60%, with behavioral and social sciences following closely
The median number of citations per meta-analysis publication is approximately 25, indicating its influence in academic circles
Meta-analyses in pharmacology have become increasingly common, now representing about 40% of drug efficacy studies
The Cochrane Collaboration has produced over 10,000 systematic reviews incorporating meta-analysis as of 2023
Use of Bayesian methods in meta-analysis has grown by approximately 50% over the past decade, especially in healthcare decision modeling
The average time from protocol registration to publication of a meta-analysis is roughly 9 months
Multi-disciplinary meta-analyses, combining data from various fields, now constitute around 15% of all published analyses
The predominant publication language of meta-analyses is English, accounting for over 85%, with increasing contributions from Chinese and Spanish-language journals
The highest impact factor journals publishing meta-analyses include The BMJ, JAMA, and The Lancet, each with impact factors exceeding 30
The median number of keywords used in meta-analysis publications is around 7, facilitating discoverability and indexing
Meta-analyses focused on mental health topics have increased by over 65% in recent years, indicating growing research attention
The average citation half-life of meta-analysis articles is approximately 7 years, suggesting sustained relevance over time
Meta-analysis research productivity varies significantly across countries, with the USA, China, and the UK producing the highest number of publications
The percentage of open access meta-analyses has increased to about 55% since the implementation of open access mandates, boosting dissemination
The average number of authors per meta-analysis paper is 4.2, reflecting collaborative research efforts
The median p-value threshold reported in meta-analyses is <0.05, aligning with standard significance criteria

Research and Publication Trends Interpretation

With over 30% of biomedical publications being meta-analyses—growing by 40% in recent years and often authored by teams of about four—it's clear that researchers are increasingly turning to cumulative evidence, sometimes spanning nearly a year of dedicated effort, to ensure their findings stand on the most robust academic shoulders amid a landscape where English dominates and impact factors soar.

Software and Technology Usage

The global market size for meta-analysis software was valued at $250 million in 2022
85% of meta-analyses use statistical software like RevMan or Stata
The use of open-source meta-analysis tools, like Meta-Essentials, has increased by over 60% in academic research since 2015

Software and Technology Usage Interpretation

With the meta-analysis software market soaring to $250 million in 2022 and an 85% reliance on established tools like RevMan and Stata, the rapid 60%+ rise of open-source options like Meta-Essentials signals a democratization of data synthesis—proof that in research, as in comedy, the best punchlines often come from the underdog.

Sources & References

Reference 26
WHO
Research Publication(2024)
Visit source