The design approaches of reinforced concrete (RC) columns are well understood at ambient temperature, and experimental test results correlate well with methods to investigate the strength capacity and failure criteria/modes of structural elements; however, this is not the case in fire scenarios. Using a meta-analysis, this study examines and evaluates the statistical reliability of six distinct methods/tabular guidelines from five countries' fire-resistant design concepts and procedures. In addition to this, the historical development of guidelines was emphasized. Meta-analysis is a method that examines a large dataset to determine the general trend of factors influencing the same object. In this investigation, 175 full-scale concrete column experiments were collected from around the world to determine their fire resistance capacity. It was discovered that all methods and tabular guidelines are founded on a specific set of experiments, and their applicability to a newly available set of experiments is beset with uncertainty. Method A of Eurocode (EN 1992(EN -1-2:2019 is relatively accurate in predicting the fire resistance rating (FRR) for up to 240 minutes, whereas Method B is accurate for up to 150 minutes. The Chinese method (DBJ/T 15-81) is regarded as quite effective for the set of experiments from which the Eurocode equation was derived, but the accuracy of its predictions for other sets of experiments was highly variable. The ACI 216.1 and IS 1642 methods appear to underestimate the FRR in most experiments. Therefore, it is concluded that either the limitations of these guidelines must be modified, or new equation/tabular guidelines are required in place of newly available experiment sets.