Content-based techniques for credibility assessment (Criteria-Based Content Analysis [CBCA], Reality Monitoring [RM]) have been shown to distinguish between experience-based and fabricated statements in previous meta-analyses. New simulations raised the question whether these results are reliable revealing that using meta-analytic methods on biased datasets lead to false-positive rates of up to 100%. By assessing the performance of and applying different bias-correcting meta-analytic methods on a set of 71 studies we aimed for more precise effect size estimates. According to the sole bias-correcting meta-analytic method that performed well under a priori specified boundary conditions, CBCA and RM distinguished between experience-based and fabricated statements. However, great heterogeneity limited precise point estimation (i.e., moderate to large effects). In contrast, Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN)--another content-based technique tested--failed to discriminate between truth and lies. It is discussed how the gap between research on and forensic application of content-based credibility assessment may be narrowed.