Just in case I was a little unclear here...as some (IMO) are too swayed by significant p-values in meta-analyses

1) yes, the p-value is significant, but an ES of 0.14 is tiny...it means 95% overlap in post intervention anxiety scores for mindfulness & controls https://twitter.com/Keith_Laws/status/1258746952063295488

2) yes, the p-value is significant, but an ES of 0.14 means that to get one more beneficial outcome in the mindfulness group compared to the control group, you need to treat around 24 people

3) yes the p-value is significant, but a quick look at the trials shows that in 3 of them, a significant difference in anxiety existed at baseline

4) yes, the p-value was significant, but only one trial was significant and that was because the wait list controls worsened (not because mindfulness reduced anxiety per se)

Yes, the p-value was significant, but an effect size of .14 means you need about 800 per group to achieve power of .8 to detect that effect - that is more participants *per trial* than all of these trials added together