Publishing a meta-analysis

With the analysis complete — effect sizes, heterogeneity, moderators, and publication bias all assessed — the last step is writing it up and choosing where to publish. That choice starts with the primary studies themselves: journals that already published several of the studies included in the review are natural candidates, since they've shown an interest in the topic — worth checking, too, whether they accept meta-analyses at all and what their length limits allow (some journals give meta-analyses significantly more room than a regular article).

In order to publish a high-quality meta-analysis it is useful to refer to meta-analysis reporting standards. In particular, various guidelines are currently available in different research fields:

• MARS (Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards), included in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th ed. (2010)
• PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses): a Statement, Explanation, Checklist, and Flow diagram — see PRISMA flow diagram and reporting guideline for how to read it
• MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology; Stroup et al., JAMA 2000)

Filling in the relevant checklist isn't just paperwork for the author: reviewers and editors use the same checklist to judge whether the submitted report is complete, which is exactly why following one from the start — rather than retrofitting it before submission — tends to save time.

The result of this step — and of the meta-analysis as a whole — is a published, peer-reviewed report that others can appraise, replicate, and build on.