- #COMPREHENSIVE META ANALYSIS FREE SOFTWARE SOFTWARE#
- #COMPREHENSIVE META ANALYSIS FREE SOFTWARE DOWNLOAD#
If this is a ‘beta’, it looks and work better than OpenMetaAnalyst ever did (although to be fair, I should revisit that some time). I prepared a small data file in CMA, based on a meta-analysis we’re currently working on, using Excel as an intermediary as CMA’s data import/export capabilities as non-existent and I need to change all decimal commas to decimal points, and copy-paste the data into MetaModel. Small issue: there’s no fixed column for subgroups within studies (or maybe I’m just doing it wrong, so I renamed the studies into Kok 2014, A, B, etc.ĬMA funnel plot (with imputed studies) THE VERDICT: However, all this looks encouraging, and it’s time for real data. I am aware of the current discussion of how Trim & Fill probably doesn’t work very well either (nor does anything else, apart from 3PSM apparently, but I think everyone can probably agree that Fail-safe N should never be used.Ĭlicking around a bit (I won’t go into all the different types of meta-analysis model estimators), I find out that I have to choose either ‘Raw Mean Difference’ or ‘Log Transformed Ratio of Means’ to make the “Need to specify ‘vi’ or ‘sei’ argument” message go away. Let us never mention Fail-safe N again, and I hope the developer removes this option ASAP. …I quickly close ‘publication bias’ again, as it only shows options for Fail-safe N. I flip open ‘Model options’, ‘plots’ and ‘publication bias’. I’ve only just entered data, and haven’t actually told MetaModel what to do so it’s no surprise that nothing works. More random clicking is in order, I think – that’s never failed me, since psychology students are taught to keep clicking until the window says p<0.05 or smaller*). This being corrected, MetaModel goes straight to work (apparently), and tells me “Need to specify ‘vi’ or ‘sei’ argument”. When I try to, it flashes the yellow ruler (?) in red – Ah, this probably means it wants continuous data, but the sample sizes had been interpreted as ordinal data as denoted by the three bubbles (same icons as in SPSS). Everything works, except… It won’t accept the sample sizes for my data. Having entered the data, I go back to “Analyse”, and try to enter my newly made data into MetaModel. Nothing in the menu so, click Modules, sideload, find the downloaded MetaModel.jmo and import it. The main screen of Jamovi looks simple, clean and friendly. I’m not entirely sure if Jamovi itself is an add-on to R, but at this point that’s not particularly relevant for what I want to do.
#COMPREHENSIVE META ANALYSIS FREE SOFTWARE SOFTWARE#
Never heard of Jamovi before, but let’s give it a shot – the installer seems straightforward, MetaModel is an add-on for the Jamovi software package, which is itself a fairly new initiative at an “open” statistics package.
#COMPREHENSIVE META ANALYSIS FREE SOFTWARE DOWNLOAD#
I was redirected to a github page, which instructed me to first download Jamovi, and add the module MetaModel.jmo. In my quest to find a suitable alternative to CMA that even full-on unapologetic troglodytes like me can understand – let’s give it a test drive!ĭISCLAIMER: Most of the time I have no idea that I’m doing, as will be readily apparent to any expert after even a cursory glance. However, I never found the time to take up the learning curve needed for R (i.e., I’m too stupid and lazy), and while recently whining on Twitter about how someone (most definitely not me) should make a graphical front-end for R that doesn’t pre-suppose advanced degrees in computer science, voodoo black arts and advanced nerdery Wolfgang Viechtbauer pointed me to JamoviMeta. On the whole, CMA is a bit cumbersome and expensive to work with, and I’ve been telling myself to go and learn R for years now if anything to use the Metafor package, which is widely regarded as excellent. Moreover, CMA has a number of very irritating bugs and glitches: just to name a few, there’s issues with copying and pasting data, issues with not outputting high-resolution graphics but just a black screen, issues with system locale, etc. Some years back, CMA changed from one-off purchases to an annual subscription plan, ranging from $195-$895 per year per user, obviously taking hints from other lucrative subscription-based plans (I’m looking at you, Office365). Downside of this relative ease of use is the unbridled proliferation of biased meta-analyses that serve only ‘prove’ something works, but let’s not get into that – my blood pressure is high enough as it is. CMA has brought the practice of meta-analysis (or ‘ an exercise in mega-silliness‘, as Eysenck called it) to a broader audience because of its relative ease of use. Red thread in this is the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) meta-analysis software package. I’ve done a few, two are under review, and two almost ready for submission.