An Empirical Comparison of Meta-Analytic and Traditional Reviews

Abstract

The quality of traditional reviews was compared with that of meta-analytic reviews. Articles were coded to provide information on several aspects of the review process. These included selection of primary studies, representation of the results from the primary studies, and interpretation of results. Reviews were sampled for the periods 1981-1983 and 1987-1988, allowing comparison between the two types of reviews within each sample and a comparison between samples. The data provided useful information related to whether one review process was superior to the other. Overall meta-analyses fared very well and appear to be the preferable method.