Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Standardized mean differences cause funnel plot distortion in publication bias assessments.
Zwetsloot, Peter-Paul; Van Der Naald, Mira; Sena, Emily S; Howells, David W; IntHout, Joanna; De Groot, Joris Ah; Chamuleau, Steven Aj; MacLeod, Malcolm R; Wever, Kimberley E.
Afiliación
  • Zwetsloot PP; Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
  • Van Der Naald M; Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands.
  • Sena ES; Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
  • Howells DW; Netherlands Heart Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands.
  • IntHout J; Center for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
  • De Groot JA; School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
  • Chamuleau SA; Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
  • MacLeod MR; Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
  • Wever KE; Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Elife ; 62017 09 08.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28884685
ABSTRACT
Meta-analyses are increasingly used for synthesis of evidence from biomedical research, and often include an assessment of publication bias based on visual or analytical detection of asymmetry in funnel plots. We studied the influence of different normalisation approaches, sample size and intervention effects on funnel plot asymmetry, using empirical datasets and illustrative simulations. We found that funnel plots of the Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) plotted against the standard error (SE) are susceptible to distortion, leading to overestimation of the existence and extent of publication bias. Distortion was more severe when the primary studies had a small sample size and when an intervention effect was present. We show that using the Normalised Mean Difference measure as effect size (when possible), or plotting the SMD against a sample size-based precision estimate, are more reliable alternatives. We conclude that funnel plots using the SMD in combination with the SE are unsuitable for publication bias assessments and can lead to false-positive results.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Estadística como Asunto / Sesgo de Publicación Tipo de estudio: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Elife Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Estadística como Asunto / Sesgo de Publicación Tipo de estudio: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Elife Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Países Bajos