Quantitative Evidence Synthesis: a Practical Guide on Meta-analysis, Meta-regression, and Publication Bias Tests for Environmental Sciences
Overview
Affiliations
Meta-analysis is a quantitative way of synthesizing results from multiple studies to obtain reliable evidence of an intervention or phenomenon. Indeed, an increasing number of meta-analyses are conducted in environmental sciences, and resulting meta-analytic evidence is often used in environmental policies and decision-making. We conducted a survey of recent meta-analyses in environmental sciences and found poor standards of current meta-analytic practice and reporting. For example, only ~ 40% of the 73 reviewed meta-analyses reported heterogeneity (variation among effect sizes beyond sampling error), and publication bias was assessed in fewer than half. Furthermore, although almost all the meta-analyses had multiple effect sizes originating from the same studies, non-independence among effect sizes was considered in only half of the meta-analyses. To improve the implementation of meta-analysis in environmental sciences, we here outline practical guidance for conducting a meta-analysis in environmental sciences. We describe the key concepts of effect size and meta-analysis and detail procedures for fitting multilevel meta-analysis and meta-regression models and performing associated publication bias tests. We demonstrate a clear need for environmental scientists to embrace multilevel meta-analytic models, which explicitly model dependence among effect sizes, rather than the commonly used random-effects models. Further, we discuss how reporting and visual presentations of meta-analytic results can be much improved by following reporting guidelines such as PRISMA-EcoEvo (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology). This paper, along with the accompanying online tutorial, serves as a practical guide on conducting a complete set of meta-analytic procedures (i.e., meta-analysis, heterogeneity quantification, meta-regression, publication bias tests and sensitivity analysis) and also as a gateway to more advanced, yet appropriate, methods.
Fixed-effect versus random-effect model in meta-analysis: How to decide?.
Maitra S Indian J Anaesth. 2025; 69(1):143-146.
PMID: 40046706 PMC: 11878354. DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_1203_24.
Pesticides have negative effects on non-target organisms.
Wan N, Fu L, Dainese M, Kiaer L, Hu Y, Xin F Nat Commun. 2025; 16(1):1360.
PMID: 39948065 PMC: 11825942. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-56732-x.
Gould E, Fraser H, Parker T, Nakagawa S, Griffith S, Vesk P BMC Biol. 2025; 23(1):35.
PMID: 39915771 PMC: 11804095. DOI: 10.1186/s12915-024-02101-x.
Global meta-analysis shows action is needed to halt genetic diversity loss.
Shaw R, Farquharson K, Bruford M, Coates D, Elliott C, Mergeay J Nature. 2025; 638(8051):704-710.
PMID: 39880948 PMC: 11839457. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-08458-x.
Holzknecht A, Land M, Dessureault-Rompre J, Elsgaard L, Lang K, Berglund O Environ Evid. 2025; 14(1):1.
PMID: 39828798 PMC: 11743012. DOI: 10.1186/s13750-024-00354-1.