If you’re just starting out in research, you’ve probably heard that meta-analyses are one of the most “high-impact” types of studies. After all, they sit near the top of the evidence pyramid. But for medical students and trainees trying to build their CVs, the role of meta-analysis can be confusing.

Is it the fastest way to get published? Is it as impressive to program directors as doing original research? And how exactly is a meta-analysis different from other types of research?

Let’s break it down.

What a Meta-Analysis Actually Is

A meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the results of multiple studies addressing the same question. The goal is to create a single, more precise estimate of an effect size than any individual study could provide.

Think of it as pooling data across published research to answer a question with greater statistical power.

Example:
If five randomized controlled trials each examined whether Drug X reduces blood pressure, a meta-analysis could combine their results into a single number that better estimates the true effect of Drug X.

What a Meta-Analysis Isn’t

It’s common to confuse meta-analyses with systematic reviews, but they’re not the same.

• A systematic review is a structured process of identifying, screening, and summarizing all the studies on a given question.
• A meta-analysis goes a step further by statistically pooling the results of those studies into a combined estimate.

Another key point: a meta-analysis is not original research. You’re not generating new data. You’re analyzing data that’s already been published for things we already know about. That’s why program directors often view them differently from projects where you formulate a new question and analyze raw data. This is also why peer-review journals reserve different sections for original research and meta-analyses. 

How Meta-Analyses Are Done (In Brief)

The workflow usually looks like this:

1. Define the research question – Often framed using PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome).
2. Conduct a systematic search – Search databases like PubMed, Embase, or Cochrane for all relevant studies.
3. Screen studies – Apply inclusion/exclusion criteria and select which papers to analyze.
4. Extract data – Pull key variables and results from each included study.
5. Perform statistical analysis – Use specialized software (RevMan, Stata, R) to pool results, test heterogeneity, and check for publication bias.
6. Interpret results – Report whether the pooled data supports or refutes your hypothesis.

While the process is rigorous, the inputs are limited by what other researchers have already published.

Why Original Research Carries More Weight

Meta-analyses are legitimate academic contributions, and getting one published is an accomplishment. But unless it’s in a rare area where there is ambiguity in the evidence, it doesn’t add much to the body of science. Original research does. As a result, program directors view this work more favorably.

Here’s why:

• Originality: Original research involves asking a novel question, analyzing raw data, and generating findings that didn’t exist before.
• Rigor: It demonstrates your ability to design a study, handle data, and apply statistical methods.
• Impact: Program directors know original research is harder to do, and publishing it signals that you can follow through on a complex project.
  

In short: A meta-analysis shows you can do literature review and data extraction from existing papers. Original research shows you can innovate and understand the process of generating new scientific findings. 

Which Type of Research Is Easier to Get Published?

It may seem like meta-analyses are the “safer” choice, but in reality, they can be harder to publish. A strong meta-analysis requires deep subject matter expertise, a well-defined research question in an area with significant ambiguity, and mastery of specialized statistical methods. If your analysis simply repeats what’s already known, journals are unlikely to accept it.

Original research, by contrast, often has a clearer path to publication. Journals prioritize new findings, and as long as your methods are sound and your question is meaningful, your chances of acceptance are generally higher.

Final Thoughts

If you’re looking to make your research experience count, original research offers more impact, more recognition, and often a smoother route to publication.

That’s exactly where Lumono can help. Lumono is the research platform that empowers you to conduct original research using large datasets—all from one application. From framing your research question to running analyses and interpreting results, Lumono helps you publish work that makes a stronger mark on your career.