This article provides guidelines for writing meta-analytic reviews, emphasizing the importance of including specific elements in the introduction, method, results, and discussion sections. The method section should detail literature searches, inclusion criteria, and study characteristics. The results section should describe effect sizes, central tendencies, variability, significance tests, confidence intervals, heterogeneity tests, and contrasts. Interpretation of results can be enhanced by using techniques like the binomial effect size display, coefficient of robustness, file drawer analysis, and counternull values. The purpose of the article is to guide the preparation of meta-analytic reviews, highlighting their role in summarizing research domains, describing effect strength, variability, significance, and moderator variables. The article notes that while detailed procedures are covered in other texts, the focus here is on what should be included in a meta-analytic report. It emphasizes that all meta-analysts should consider quantitative methods, as they preserve the virtues of narrative reviews. The complexity of meta-analytic procedures varies, but reporting basics helps readers understand and verify conclusions. The article also discusses the importance of descriptive data, including effect sizes, their distribution, and central tendency. It highlights the use of visual displays, central tendency measures, variability indices, and inferential data such as significance tests, confidence intervals, and heterogeneity tests. The discussion section should summarize results, provide tentative explanations, and consider implications for theory, practice, and further research. The reference list should include full references for all studies, with an appendix providing detailed data for each study. The article concludes that most literature reviews should be quantitative, as should primary research studies. Meta-analyses range from basic to complex, and the goal is to provide general guidelines rather than prescriptive rules. The article advocates for simplicity, clarity, and intuition in reporting meta-analytic results.This article provides guidelines for writing meta-analytic reviews, emphasizing the importance of including specific elements in the introduction, method, results, and discussion sections. The method section should detail literature searches, inclusion criteria, and study characteristics. The results section should describe effect sizes, central tendencies, variability, significance tests, confidence intervals, heterogeneity tests, and contrasts. Interpretation of results can be enhanced by using techniques like the binomial effect size display, coefficient of robustness, file drawer analysis, and counternull values. The purpose of the article is to guide the preparation of meta-analytic reviews, highlighting their role in summarizing research domains, describing effect strength, variability, significance, and moderator variables. The article notes that while detailed procedures are covered in other texts, the focus here is on what should be included in a meta-analytic report. It emphasizes that all meta-analysts should consider quantitative methods, as they preserve the virtues of narrative reviews. The complexity of meta-analytic procedures varies, but reporting basics helps readers understand and verify conclusions. The article also discusses the importance of descriptive data, including effect sizes, their distribution, and central tendency. It highlights the use of visual displays, central tendency measures, variability indices, and inferential data such as significance tests, confidence intervals, and heterogeneity tests. The discussion section should summarize results, provide tentative explanations, and consider implications for theory, practice, and further research. The reference list should include full references for all studies, with an appendix providing detailed data for each study. The article concludes that most literature reviews should be quantitative, as should primary research studies. Meta-analyses range from basic to complex, and the goal is to provide general guidelines rather than prescriptive rules. The article advocates for simplicity, clarity, and intuition in reporting meta-analytic results.