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

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Neuroscience
• Mind-Body Medicine

Background:

• Methodological concerns were raised regarding a meta-analysis of meditation's psychological effects.
• Specific concerns focused on the treatment of transcendental meditation (TM) studies.

Purpose of the Study:

• To address and clarify methodological concerns about a meta-analysis on meditation's psychological effects.
• To respond to specific criticisms regarding the aggregation of variables, potential bias, and study selection in TM research.

Main Methods:

• A meta-analysis synthesizing existing research on the psychological effects of meditation.
• Re-evaluation of data aggregation methods and bias assessment for transcendental meditation studies.

Main Results:

• The original methodology for reporting results was deemed theoretically justified.
• Some indication of upward bias in TM studies persists even with alternative methods.
• A minor omission of TM studies did not substantially alter the meta-analysis conclusions.

Conclusions:

• The meta-analysis methodology is defended, with clarifications provided on data handling and bias.
• While acknowledging a small number of missed TM studies, the core findings remain robust.
• Recommendations are offered for future meditation research conduct.