"We had no knowledge on meta‐analyses and were somewhat confused by the number of programs available. Most of them were not easy to use, not insightful and required a priori knowledge of metaanalyses statistics. There was one exception: Comprehensive Meta‐analysis. We downloaded the software and went through the easy‐to‐use tutorial. Within an hour we were performing our own metaanalysis! Our analysis was verified by our statistical department with excellent results, giving us further confidence to continue our analysis and resulting in an excellent paper in the top journal on pain research: Niesters et al., Do Sex Differences Exist in Opioid Analgesia? A Systematic Review and Meta‐ Analysis of Human Experimental and Clinical Studies. Pain, 2010, in press, doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.06.012."

Albert Dahan, MD, PhD & Marieke Niesters, MD, MSc - Department of Anesthesiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

"I'm a graduate student at NC State University, and recently I tried out CMA for my lab. For the record, it is awesome. My lab, Meta World, is specifically focused on meta‐analysis, so we've used a lot of programs both good and bad. CMA is by far the best we've tried in terms of ease of use. It is simple enough for a first time meta‐analyst to use, but the best part is the diversity of options for the more advanced user. It is amazingly easy to switch effects models and other aspects, to the point that it's fun to fiddle around with things to see the difference they make. The options for output are everything you'd need for publication, and they look a good sight better than what I would have come up with without CMA. It is the only software that had all the functionality I needed for my thesis, and without it I would be stuck writing my own code."

Jennifer London - Doctoral Student in I/O Psychology, NC State University