+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

In meta-analyses of proportion studies, funnel plots were found to be an inaccurate method of assessing publication bias



In meta-analyses of proportion studies, funnel plots were found to be an inaccurate method of assessing publication bias



Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 67(8): 897-903



To assess the utility of funnel plots in assessing publication bias (PB) in meta-analyses of proportion studies. Meta-analysis simulation study and meta-analysis of published literature reporting peri-operative mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Data for the simulation study were stochastically generated. A literature search of Medline and Embase was performed to identify studies for inclusion in the published literature meta-analyses. The simulation study demonstrated that conventionally constructed funnel plots (log odds vs. 1/standard error [1/SE]) for extreme proportional outcomes were asymmetric despite no PB. Alternative funnel plots constructed using study size rather than 1/SE showed no asymmetry for extreme proportional outcomes. When used in meta-analyses of the mortality of AAA repair, these alternative funnel plots highlighted the possibility for conventional funnel plots to demonstrate asymmetry when there was no evidence of PB. Conventional funnel plots used to assess for potential PB in meta-analyses are inaccurate for meta-analyses of proportion studies with low proportion outcomes. Funnel plots of study size against log odds may be a more accurate way of assessing for PB in these studies.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 053761082

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 24794697

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.003


Related references

Asymmetric funnel plots and publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. International Journal of Epidemiology 31(1): 88-95, 2002

Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 61(10): 991-996, 2008

Assessment of funnel plot asymmetry and publication bias in reproductive health meta-analyses: an analytic survey. Reproductive Health 4: 3, 2007

Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56(2): 455-463, 2000

Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals. Anesthesia and Analgesia 123(4): 1018-1025, 2017

Estimating the proportion of studies missing for meta-analysis due to publication bias. Contemporary Clinical Trials 29(5): 732-739, 2008

Assessing robustness against potential publication bias in Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analyses for fMRI. Plos One 13(11): E0208177, 2018

Assessing small study effects and publication bias in orthodontic meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study. Clinical Oral Investigations 18(4): 1031-1044, 2016

Meta-analyses: funnel plots. Bmj 343(Aug31 3): D5372-D5372, 2011

A modified regression method to test publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 14: 132, 2016

Meta-analyses with binary outcomes: how many studies need to be omitted to detect a publication bias?. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part a 71(13-14): 845-850, 2008

Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 54(10): 1046-1055, 2001

Assessing publication bias in genetic association studies: evidence from a recent meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research 129(1): 39-44, 2004

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Laboratory Animals 45(4): 225-230, 2012

Publication bias examined in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine: A meta-meta-analysis. Plos One 14(4): E0215052, 2019