Death anxiety in connection to anxiety and depressive disorders: A meta-analysis on emotional distress in clinical and community samples

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. Show more

There are two popular statistical models for meta-analysis, the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model. The fact that these two models employ similar sets of formulas to compute statistics, and sometimes yield similar estimates for the various parameters, may lead people to believe that the models are interchangeable. In fact, though, the models represent fundamentally different assumptions about the data. The selection of the appropriate model is important to ensure that the various statistics are estimated correctly. Additionally, and more fundamentally, the model serves to place the analysis in context. It provides a framework for the goals of the analysis as well as for the interpretation of the statistics. In this paper we explain the key assumptions of each model, and then outline the differences between the models. We conclude with a discussion of factors to consider when choosing between the two models. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Show more

We study recently developed nonparametric methods for estimating the number of missing studies that might exist in a meta-analysis and the effect that these studies might have had on its outcome. These are simple rank-based data augmentation techniques, which formalize the use of funnel plots. We show that they provide effective and relatively powerful tests for evaluating the existence of such publication bias. After adjusting for missing studies, we find that the point estimate of the overall effect size is approximately correct and coverage of the effect size confidence intervals is substantially improved, in many cases recovering the nominal confidence levels entirely. We illustrate the trim and fill method on existing meta-analyses of studies in clinical trials and psychometrics. Show more