Skip to content

Meta-analyses and other methodological issues in meditation research: Reply to Orme-Johnson and Dillbeck (2014).

Peter Sedlmeier, Juliane Eberth, Marcus Schwarz

Psychological Bulletin March 1, 2014 DOI: 10.1037/a0035896 (opens in new tab)

Read Full Text
Relevant Not relevant

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Meta-analysis Peer reviewed
Topics Meditation
Key findings The authors defend their meta-analysis methodology and maintain evidence of upward bias in TM studies, though they acknowledge missing some TM studies without substantial impact on conclusions.

Abstract

We are grateful to Orme-Johnson and Dillbeck (2014) for raising several potential methodological concerns they have with our meta-analysis of the psychological effects of meditation and for thereby providing us with the opportunity to clarify these points. Orme-Johnson and Dillbeck raised 4 points that they believed might have led to unfair treatment of studies that reported the effects of transcendental meditation (TM). First, they were concerned with the way we aggregated effects over different categories of variables. Second, they disagreed with our contention that there might have been some upward bias in the effects reported for TM studies. Third, they argued that the results from TM studies do not differ depending on whether studies were done by researchers affiliated with TM institutions, and 4th, they questioned the completeness of our selection of TM studies. We still believe that our methodology for reporting study results was justified on theoretical grounds and argue that the results for all variable categories are readily available in our analysis. We also still find some indication of upward bias for TM studies, even using the method they propose. We cannot say much regarding author affiliation because we did not raise that point, and, last, we have to concede that we indeed missed some TM studies. Yet this omission did not have any substantial practical consequences concerning our conclusions. We end with a short discussion about how meditation research should be conducted in the future.

Comparable studies

Other systematic reviews and meta-analyses on meditation, most cited first.

Study Year Design Participants
Meditation Programs for Psychological Stress and Well-being Diverse adult clinical populations 2014 Meta-analysis n = 3,515
Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for Stress Management in Healthy People: A Review and Meta-Analysis Healthy subjects 2009 Systematic review and meta-analysis
The psychological effects of meditation: A meta-analysis. Nonclinical groups of adult meditators 2012 Meta-analysis n = 163
Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in Prevention of Depressive Relapse Adults with recurrent depression in full or partial remission 2016 Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials n = 1,258
Mindfulness‐Based Stress Reduction and Mindfulness‐Based Cognitive Therapy – a systematic review of randomized controlled trials 2011 Systematic review

Citations in the library

Cited by 6

and 1 more in the library

Cites 5

Related reading

Explore topics

Meditation Addiction