"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

"Our group has recently begun to conduct meta‐analyses within our area of research, i.e. psychooncology and health psychology, and we have found CMA extremely useful. CMA distinguishes itself from other available meta‐analysis software by the various options to explore and adjust for possible publication bias, as well as by providing several options to explore possible moderators, not only categorical but also continuous. We encourage our PhD students to conduct quantitative systematic reviews as a part of their dissertation whenever possible. The clear menu‐driven approach of CMA makes it easy to use for beginners, so that they can focus their energy on the analytical aspects of metaanalysis, rather than on the technical issues of using the software."

Bobby (Robert) Zachariae - Professor, dr.med., Psycho‐oncology Research Unit, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark