Calculations of the power of statistical tests are important in planning research studies (including meta-analyses) and in interpreting situations in which a result has not proven to be statistically significant. The authors describe procedures to compute statistical power of fixed- and random-effects tests of the mean effect size, tests for heterogeneity (or variation) of effect size parameters across studies, and tests for contrasts among effect sizes of different studies. Examples are given using 2 published meta-analyses. The examples illustrate that statistical power is not always high in meta-analysis.

Calculation of the statistical power of statistical tests is important in planning and interpreting the results of research studies, including meta-analyses. It is particularly important in moderator analyses in meta-analysis, which are often used as sensitivity analyses to rule out moderator effects but also may have low statistical power. This article describes how to compute statistical power of both fixed- and mixed-effects moderator tests in meta-analysis that are analogous to the analysis of variance and multiple regression analysis for effect sizes. It also shows how to compute power of tests for goodness of fit associated with these models. Examples from a published meta-analysis demonstrate that power of moderator tests and goodness-of-fit tests is not always high.

This paper reviews methods for handling missing data in a research study. Many researchers use ad hoc methods such as complete case analysis, available case analysis (pairwise deletion), or single-value imputation. Though these methods are easily implemented, they require assumptions about the data that rarely hold in practice. Model-based methods such as maximum likelihood using the EM algorithm and multiple imputation hold more promise for dealing with dif®culties caused by missing data. While model-based methods require specialized computer programs and assumptions about the nature of the missing data, these methods are appropriate for a wider range of situations than the more commonly used ad hoc methods. The paper provides an illustration of the methods using data from an intervention study designed to increase students' ability to control their asthma symptoms.All researchers have faced the problem of missing quantitative data at some point in their work. Research informants may refuse or forget to answer a survey question, ®les are lost, or data are not recorded properly. Given the expense of collecting data, we cannot afford to start over or to wait until we have developed foolproof methods of gathering information, an unattainable goal. We ®nd ourselves left with the decision of how to analyze data when we do not have complete information from all informants. We are not alone in this problem; the United States Census Bureau has been involved in a debate with the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court over the handling of the undercount in the 2000 U.S. Census. Given that most researchers do not have the resources of the U.S. Census Bureau, what are the options available for analyzing data with missing information?

In this article, the authors outline methods for using fixed and random effects power analysis in the context of meta-analysis. Like statistical power analysis for primary studies, power analysis for meta-analysis can be done either prospectively or retrospectively and requires assumptions about parameters that are unknown. The authors provide some suggestions for thinking about these parameters, in particular for the random effects variance component. The authors also show how the typically uninformative retrospective power analysis can be made more informative. The authors then discuss the value of confidence intervals, show how they could be used in addition to or instead of retrospective power analysis, and also demonstrate that confidence intervals can convey information more effectively in some situations than power analyses alone. Finally, the authors take up the question “How many studies do you need to do a meta-analysis?” and show that, given the need for a conclusion, the answer is “two studies,” because all other synthesis techniques are less transparent and/or are less likely to be valid. For systematic reviewers who choose not to conduct a quantitative synthesis, the authors provide suggestions for both highlighting the current limitations in the research base and for displaying the characteristics and results of studies that were found to meet inclusion criteria.