Literature DB >> 12820277

Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity.

Norma Terrin1, Christopher H Schmid, Joseph Lau, Ingram Olkin.   

Abstract

It is known that the existence of publication bias can influence the conclusions of a meta-analysis. Some methods have been developed to deal with publication bias, but issues remain. One particular method called 'trim and fill' is designed to adjust for publication bias. The method, which is intuitively appealing and comprehensible by non-statisticians, is based on a simple and popular graphical tool called the funnel plot. We present a simulation study designed to evaluate the behaviour of this method. Our results indicate that when the studies are heterogeneous (that is, when they estimate different effects), trim and fill may inappropriately adjust for publication bias where none exists. We found that trim and fill may spuriously adjust for non-existent bias if (i) the variability among studies causes some precisely estimated studies to have effects far from the global mean or (ii) an inverse relationship between treatment efficacy and sample size is introduced by the studies' a priori power calculations. The results suggest that the funnel plot itself is inappropriate for heterogeneous meta-analyses. Selection modelling is an alternative method warranting further study. It performed better than trim and fill in our simulations, although its frequency of convergence varied, depending on the simulation parameters. Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12820277     DOI: 10.1002/sim.1461

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  124 in total

Review 1.  Assessment of publication bias in meta-analyses of cardiovascular diseases.

Authors:  Silvia Palma; Miguel Delgado-Rodriguez
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 2.  The case of the misleading funnel plot.

Authors:  Joseph Lau; John P A Ioannidis; Norma Terrin; Christopher H Schmid; Ingram Olkin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-09-16

3.  Meta-analysis of marital dissolution and mortality: reevaluating the intersection of gender and age.

Authors:  Eran Shor; David J Roelfs; Paul Bugyi; Joseph E Schwartz
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Evidence-based treatment of acute pancreatitis: a look at established paradigms.

Authors:  Stefan Heinrich; Markus Schäfer; Valentin Rousson; Pierre-Alain Clavien
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis; Thomas A Trikalinos
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2007-04-10       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Effects of experimental negative affect manipulations on ad libitum smoking: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bryan W Heckman; Matthew J Carpenter; John B Correa; Jennifer M Wray; Michael E Saladin; Brett Froeliger; David J Drobes; Thomas H Brandon
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 6.526

Review 7.  Alcohol interventions for mandated college students: A meta-analytic review.

Authors:  Kate B Carey; Lori A J Scott-Sheldon; Lorra Garey; Jennifer C Elliott; Michael P Carey
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  2016-04-21

Review 8.  Meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of droxidopa for neurogenic orthostatic hypotension.

Authors:  Ahmed Elgebaly; Bassant Abdelazeim; Omar Mattar; Mohamed Gadelkarim; Rehab Salah; Ahmed Negida
Journal:  Clin Auton Res       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 4.435

9.  Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study.

Authors:  Santiago G Moreno; Alex J Sutton; A E Ades; Tom D Stanley; Keith R Abrams; Jaime L Peters; Nicola J Cooper
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2009-01-12       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 10.  How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.