Science Explorer Back to mapMap
Discussion
Topic · Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews is a research topic within Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty. Science Explorer counts 26k research works in it since 1950. 10.2% of them reached the world's top 10% most cited for their field and year.

This cluster of papers focuses on methods and guidelines for conducting systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and evidence synthesis in research. It covers topics such as the PRISMA statement, measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses, assessing risk of bias, detecting publication bias, and interpreting effect sizes. The papers also discuss reporting guidelines, quality assessment tools, and diagnostic accuracy in research.

  • PRISMA Statement
  • Meta-Analysis
  • Quality Assessment
  • Publication Bias
  • Evidence Synthesis
  • Reporting Guidelines
  • Risk of Bias
  • Diagnostic Accuracy
  • Research Methodology
  • Effect Size
Research works
26k
fractional, since 1950
In the world top 10%
2.7k
per year above
Top-10% rate
10.2%
share of its works in the world top 10%
Growth, 2018-21 → 2022-25
+11%
the tick is no change
Largest producer
United States
40% of the 10 largest, 2022-now
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

Which countries lead Meta-analysis and systematic reviews research?

By volume, the United States and the United Kingdom publish the most (1.9k and 645 works in 2022-now).

By volume, 2022-now

  1. 1 United States 1.9k works
  2. 2 United Kingdom 645 works
  3. 3 China 388 works
  4. 4 Canada 365 works
  5. 5 Germany 333 works
  6. 6 India 285 works
  7. 7 Australia 254 works
  8. 8 Netherlands 190 works
  9. 9 France 146 works
  10. 10 Italy 145 works

How concentrated that is

The same countries as shares of everything the list above accounts for. A node where two countries do two thirds of the work and one spread evenly across twelve read alike as a ranking and not at all alike here.

United States: 40.4%United Kingdom: 14.0%China: 8.4%Canada: 7.9%6 others listed: 29.3%40%largest
United States1,862 · 40.4%United Kingdom645 · 14.0%China388 · 8.4%Canada365 · 7.9%6 others listed1,353 · 29.3%

Shares of the rows listed above, not of the whole node.

Which institutions lead Meta-analysis and systematic reviews research?

By volume in 2022-now, Harvard University publishes the most Meta-analysis and systematic reviews research, followed by University of Toronto and McMaster University.

By volume, 2022-now

  1. 1 Harvard UniversityUnited States 66 works
  2. 2 University of TorontoCanada 53 works
  3. 3 McMaster UniversityCanada 47 works
  4. 4 University College LondonUnited Kingdom 45 works
  5. 5 University of OttawaCanada 42 works
  6. 6 University of North Carolina at Chapel HillUnited States 39 works
  7. 7 Stanford UniversityUnited States 34 works
  8. 8 Johns Hopkins UniversityUnited States 32 works
  9. 9 University of OxfordUnited Kingdom 31 works
  10. 10 Mayo ClinicUnited States 31 works

Who are the leading researchers in Meta-analysis and systematic reviews?

The most-cited researchers publishing on Meta-analysis and systematic reviews include David Moher, Douglas G. Altman and Christopher J L Murray.

  1. 1 David Moher Canada 898k citations
  2. 2 Douglas G. Altman United Kingdom 862k citations
  3. 3 Christopher J L Murray United States 583k citations
  4. 4 Jennifer Tetzlaff Canada 495k citations
  5. 5 Rob Knight United States 468k citations
  6. 6 Theo Vos United States 439k citations
  7. 7 George Davey Smith United Kingdom 435k citations
  8. 8 Walter Churchill Willett United States 411k citations
  9. 9 Robert John Tibshirani United States 396k citations
  10. 10 Daniel J. Kahneman United States 395k citations

Ranked by citations received across their whole record, among researchers with at least three works on this topic.

What are the most cited papers in Meta-analysis and systematic reviews?

The most cited paper in Meta-analysis and systematic reviews is "The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews" (Matthew James Page et al., 2021), with 105,915 citations. Next come "Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement" (83,711) and "Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses" (64,184).

Most cited papers
#PaperReleasedCitations
1 The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews Matthew James Page et al. · BMJ ReviewOpen access 29 Mar 2021 105,915
2 Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff et al. · BMJ ReviewOpen access 21 Jul 2009 83,711
3 Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses Julian P. T. Higgins, Simon G. Thompson, Jonathan J Deeks et al. · BMJ Open access 4 Sep 2003 64,184
4 Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test Matthias Egger, George Davey Smith, Martin Schneider et al. · BMJ Open access 13 Sep 1997 57,774
5 Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups Allison Tong, Peter Sainsbury, Jonathan C. Craig · International Journal for Quality in Health Care Open access 14 Sep 2007 43,999
All 82 most cited papers, with filters and sorting

Where is Meta-analysis and systematic reviews research done?

The largest centres of Meta-analysis and systematic reviews research in 2022-now are London (United Kingdom), New York (United States), Beijing (China) and Melbourne (Australia). Among places with at least 20 works in it, it is an unusually large share of all research in Tulsa and Hamilton.

Largest cities, 2022-now

  1. 1 LondonUnited Kingdom 165 works
  2. 2 New YorkUnited States 88 works
  3. 3 BeijingChina 81 works
  4. 4 MelbourneAustralia 79 works
  5. 5 TorontoCanada 77 works
  6. 6 OttawaCanada 68 works
  7. 7 ParisFrance 62 works
  8. 8 BostonUnited States 62 works
  9. 9 New DelhiIndia 56 works
  10. 10 HamiltonCanada 49 works

Where it is the local speciality

  1. TulsaUS · 24.3 works27×
  2. HamiltonCA · 49.1 works13×
← less than its size predicts1×more →

Location quotient: how much more of its research is in Meta-analysis and systematic reviews than the world average.

See Meta-analysis and systematic reviews on the map

Where is the best place to study Meta-analysis and systematic reviews?

Among universities, judged by research, University of Sheffield, University College London and University of Ottawa score highest, combining excellence, specialisation, size, growth and international reach. Research strength is one signal when choosing where to study; it does not measure teaching.

0%10%20%mean 14.65%fractional works in this field (log) →share of work in the world top 10% →University of Sheffi…Utrecht UniversityUniversity College L…University of Ottawa
above the meannear itbelow it

One dot per university in the first ten of the table below, at the default weights. The upper left is the interesting corner: small places doing unusually strong work.

Excellenceshare of its work in the world top 10%, 2022-now and all time averaged
40%
Specialisationhow much of its work is in this field, counted up to 10× the world share
10%
Sizeits output in this field, on a log scale
30%
Growthoutput growth, counted from -20% to +20%
10%
Internationalshare of its work with a co-author abroad
10%
Each slider sets a weight; the share it gets of the score is beside it.
#UniversityScoreTop 10%SpecialisationWorksGrowth
1University of SheffieldUnited Kingdom 76.719.3%9.1×26 +45.1%
2University College LondonUnited Kingdom 76.015.6%5.1×45 +1.6%
3University of OttawaCanada 74.812.5%11.7×42 -9.2%
4Utrecht UniversityNetherlands 74.116.8%6.5×26 +20.4%
5University of TorontoCanada 71.517.4%4.8×53 -11.0%
6University of BernSwitzerland 70.715.3%6.8×20 +18.4%
7Harvard UniversityUnited States 68.811.2%3.8×66 +2.6%
8McMaster UniversityCanada 67.710.4%14.7×47 -6.7%
9Monash UniversityAustralia 65.715.6%4.6×24 +16.3%
10Stanford UniversityUnited States 65.112.4%4.2×34 +8.7%

Universities only. The score blends excellence (40%), size (30%), specialisation (10%), growth (10%), international reach (10%), 2022-now; growth compares 2018-21 with 2022-25 and counts up to +20%, since a jump from a small base is mostly noise.

Every institution in Meta-analysis and systematic reviews, country by country

Is Meta-analysis and systematic reviews research growing?

Output in 2022-2025 was 11% higher than in 2018-2021, peaking in 2025. The fastest-growing topics are Meta-analysis and systematic reviews.

still counting19801990200020102020
grewheldshrank

The same series as a ribbon: one cell per year, darker for more. The line above answers how much; this answers when.

Its share of all research

Growing output can still be a shrinking share: all of science grows. This is Meta-analysis and systematic reviews as a percentage of every work published that year, 0.023% in 2024.

still counting0.010%0.020%0.030%Meta-analysis and systematic reviews0.027% in 202519801990200020102020

Fractional works of Meta-analysis and systematic reviews over all fractional works that year. How the balance of science has shifted.

How much of it reaches the world top 10%

Year by year.

still counting5%10%15%Meta-analysis and systematic reviews10.2% in 2025200020102020

Of each year's works in it, the share that reached the world's 10% most cited for their field and year. A field is the world for its own topics, so there is no other line to hold it against.

Which topics inside it are moving

Growth and decline on one axis around a shared zero. Two lists side by side hide the thing that matters: whether the growth dwarfs the decline, or the other way round.

Discussion

Ask a question or share a note about Meta-analysis and systematic reviews. Posts are plain text and can be reported.