Methods of Conducting Meta Analyses

Our mission is to foster the improvements in the analysis of health related phenomena among older minority; encourage the development of methods and measures that better capture the health and determinants of health of diverse elders; promote collaboration between RCMAR sites on analysis issues; and disseminate new knowledge in this area.

Methods of Conducting Meta-Analyses

Methods of conducting meta-analyses:

Allison, D. B., & Faith, M. S. (1996). Hypnosis as an adjunct to cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy for obesity: A meta-analytic reappraisal. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 513-516.

I. Kirsch, G. Montgomery,and G. Sapirstein (1995) meta-analyzed 6 weight-loss studies comparing the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) alone to CBT plus hypnotherapy and concluded that “the additional of hypnosis substantially enhanced treatment outcome” (p. 214). Kirsch reported a mean effect size (expressed as d) of 1.96. After correcting several transcription and computational inaccuracies in the original meta-analysis, these 6 studies yield a smaller mean effect size (.26). Moreover, if 1 questionable study is removed from the analysis, the effect sizes become more homogeneous and the mean (.21) is no longer statistically significant. It is concluded that the addition of hypnosis to CBT for weight loss results in, at most, a small enhancement of treatment outcome.