1. Given the increasing use of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology, their protocols should be closely followed to ensure quality. Several checklists are available to guide researchers towards a high‐quality meta‐analytic study. Freshwater ecology studies have a tradition of using experimental studies, which provide the ideal data to test hypotheses using meta‐analysis.
2. Here, we evaluated the quality of 114 meta‐analyses in freshwater ecology and 86 meta‐analyses in ecology and evolution for comparative purposes.
3. We found that many studies are still using the term meta‐analysis incorrectly and that this error persisted over time. The quality of the studies that did conduct a formal meta‐analysis has improved. Thus, we speculate that available guidelines are being effective in improving the quality of meta‐analytic studies. Quality was not associated with the impact factor of the journal where the meta‐analyses were published or with the average number of citations.
4. In addition to the incorrect use of the term, we found that many studies failed to: report heterogeneity statistics, evaluate temporal changes in effect size, conduct publication bias analyses, address the collinearity among moderators, and provide the data. In general, meta‐analyses in ecology and evolution have only a slightly better average score than meta‐analyses in freshwater ecology.
5. Although the quality of meta‐analyses in freshwater ecology has improved over time, there is much room for improvement. Authors should not label their studies as meta‐analyses if these methods were not used. Compliance with checklists should be widely fostered as meta‐analyses are increasingly being used to summarise findings in different areas of ecology. Authors, reviewers, and editors should use checklists to improve the quality of meta‐analyses in freshwater ecology.

中文翻译：

---

淡水生态系统荟萃分析的质量：系统评价

1. 鉴于在生态学中越来越多地使用系统的综述和荟萃分析，因此应严格遵循其规程以确保质量。可以使用一些清单来指导研究人员进行高质量的荟萃分析研究。淡水生态学研究具有使用实验研究的传统，它提供了使用荟萃分析检验假设的理想数据。
2. 在这里，我们比较了淡水生态学中的114项荟萃分析和生态学及进化中的86项荟萃分析的质量，以作比较。
3. 我们发现，许多研究仍在错误地使用术语“荟萃分析”，并且随着时间的流逝，这种错误持续存在。进行正式的荟萃分析的研究质量已有所提高。因此，我们推测可用的指南在提高荟萃分析研究的质量方面是有效的。质量与发表荟萃分析的期刊的影响因子或平均引用次数无关。
4. 除了不正确地使用该术语外，我们发现许多研究还没有：报告异质性统计数据，评估效应量的时间变化，进行发布偏倚分析，解决主持人之间的共线性并提供数据。一般而言，生态学和进化学的荟萃分析的平均得分仅比淡水生态学的荟萃分析略高。
5. 尽管随着时间的推移，淡水生态学中的荟萃分析的质量有所提高，但仍有很大的改进空间。如果不使用这些方法，作者不应将其研究标记为荟萃分析。随着荟萃分析越来越多地用于总结生态学不同领域的发现，应广泛促进对清单的遵守。作者，审稿人和编辑应使用清单来提高淡水生态系统中的荟萃分析的质量。