Publication bias frequently appears in meta-analyses when the included studies’ results (e.g., p-values) influence the studies’ publication processes. Some unfavorable studies may be suppressed from publication, so the meta-analytic results may be biased toward an artificially favorable direction. Many statistical tests have been proposed to detect publication bias in recent two decades. However, they often make dramatically different assumptions about the cause of publication bias; therefore, they are usually powerful only in certain cases that support their particular assumptions, while their powers may be fairly low in many other cases. Although several simulation studies have been carried out to compare different tests’ powers under various situations, it is typically infeasible to justify the exact mechanism of publication bias in a real-world meta-analysis and thus select the corresponding optimal publication bias test. We introduce a hybrid test for publication bias by synthesizing various tests and incorporating their benefits, so that it maintains relatively high powers across various mechanisms of publication bias. The superior performance of the proposed hybrid test is illustrated using simulation studies and three real-world meta-analyses with different effect sizes. It is compared with many existing methods, including the commonly used regression and rank tests, and the trim-and-fill method.

1. Gurevitch, J, Koricheva, J, Nakagawa, S, et al. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature 2018; 555: 175182.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
2. Turner, EH, Matthews, AM, Linardatos, E, et al. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New Engl J Med 2008; 358: 252260.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
3. Sutton, AJ, Song, F, Gilbody, SM, et al. Modelling publication bias in meta-analysis: a review. Stat Meth Med Res 2000; 9: 421445.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
4. Hayashino, Y, Noguchi, Y, Fukui, T. Systematic evaluation and comparison of statistical tests for publication bias. J Epidemiol 2005; 15: 235243.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
5. Mavridis, D, Salanti, G. Exploring and accounting for publication bias in mental health: a brief overview of methods. Evidence-Based Mental Health 2014; 17: 1115.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
6. Jin, ZC, Zhou, XH, He, J. Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2015; 34: 343360.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
7. Light, RJ, Pillemer, DB. Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
Google Scholar
8. Sterne, JAC, Egger, M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 10461055.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
9. Begg, CB, Mazumdar, M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994; 50: 10881101.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
10. Egger, M, Davey Smith, G, Schneider, M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629634.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
11. Duval, S, Tweedie, R. A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 2000; 95: 8998.
Google Scholar | ISI
12. Macaskill, P, Walter, SD, Irwig, L. A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2001; 20: 641654.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
13. Peters, JL, Sutton, AJ, Jones, DR, et al. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA 2006; 295: 676680.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
14. Lin, L, Chu, H. Quantifying publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2018; 74: 785794.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
15. Peters, JL, Sutton, AJ, Jones, DR, et al. Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. Stat Med 2007; 26: 45444562.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
16. Sterne, JAC, Gavaghan, D, Egger, M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 11191129.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
17. Schwarzer, G, Antes, G, Schumacher, M. Inflation of type I error rate in two statistical tests for the detection of publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes. Stat Med 2002; 21: 24652477.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
18. Zwetsloot, PP, Van Der Naald, M, Sena, ES, et al. Standardized mean differences cause funnel plot distortion in publication bias assessments. eLife 2017; 6: e24260.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
19. Lin, L. Bias caused by sampling error in meta-analysis with small sample sizes. PLOS ONE 2018; 13: e0204056.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
20. Pustejovsky, JE, Rodgers, MA. Testing for funnel plot asymmetry of standardized mean differences. Res Synth Methods 2019; 10: 5771.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
21. Lin, L, Chu, H, Murad, MH, et al. Empirical comparison of publication bias tests in meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2018; 33: 12601267.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
22. Thompson, SG, Sharp, SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med 1999; 18: 26932708.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
23. Tang, JL, Liu, JLY. Misleading funnel plot for detection of bias in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 477484.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
24. Duval, S, Tweedie, R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000; 56: 455463.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
25. Shi, L, Lin, L. The trim-and-fill method for publication bias: practical guidelines and recommendations based on a large database of meta-analyses. Medicine 2019; 98: e15987.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
26. Rücker, G, Schwarzer, G, Carpenter, J. Arcsine test for publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes. Stat Med 2008; 27: 746763.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
27. Jin, ZC, Wu, C, Zhou, XH, et al. A modified regression method to test publication bias in meta-analyses with binary outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 132.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
28. Harbord, RM, Egger, M, Sterne, JAC. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 2006; 25: 34433457.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
29. Schwarzer, G, Antes, G, Schumacher, M. A test for publication bias in meta-analysis with sparse binary data. Stat Med 2007; 26: 721733.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
30. Conneely, KN, Boehnke, M. So many correlated tests, so little time! Rapid adjustment of P values for multiple correlated tests. Am J Hum Genet 2007; 81: 11581168.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
31. Pan, W, Kim, J, Zhang, Y, et al. A powerful and adaptive association test for rare variants. Genetics 2014; 210: 10811095.
Google Scholar | Crossref
32. Xu, G, Lin, L, Wei, P, et al. An adaptive two-sample test for high-dimensional means. Biometrika 2016; 103: 609624.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
33. Efron, B, Tibshirani, RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1998.
Google Scholar
34. Boos, DD, Zhang, J. Monte Carlo evaluation of resampling-based hypothesis tests. J Am Stat Assoc 2000; 95: 486492.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
35. Takkouche, B, Cadarso-Suárez, C, Spiegelman, D. Evaluation of old and new tests of heterogeneity in epidemiologic meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 1999; 150: 206215.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
36. Higgins, JPT. Commentary: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified. Int J Epidemiol 2008; 37: 11581160.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
37. Adams, DC, Gurevitch, J, Rosenberg, MS. Resampling tests for meta-analysis of ecological data. Ecology 1997; 78: 12771283
Google Scholar | Crossref
38. Higgins, JPT, Thompson, SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 15391558.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
39. Demetrashvili, N, Van den Heuvel, ER. Confidence intervals for intraclass correlation coefficients in a nonlinear dose–response meta-analysis. Biometrics 2015; 71: 548555.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
40. Hedges, LV, Olkin, I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1985.
Google Scholar | Crossref
41. Plourde, G, Pancholy, SB, Nolan, J, et al. Radiation exposure in relation to the arterial access site used for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2015; 386: 21922203.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
42. Paige, NM, Miake-Lye, IM, Booth, MS, et al. Association of spinal manipulative therapy with clinical benefit and harm for acute low back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2017; 317: 14511460.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
43. Whiting, PF, Wolff, RF, Deshpande, S, et al. Cannabinoids for medical use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2015; 313: 24562473.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
44. Sterne, JAC, Sutton, AJ, Ioannidis, JPA, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d4002.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
45. Peters, JL, Sutton, AJ, Jones, DR, et al. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 991996.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
46. Lin, L. Graphical augmentations to sample-size-based funnel plot in meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2019; 10: 376388.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
47. Schwarzer, G, Carpenter, J, Rücker, G. Empirical evaluation suggests Copas selection model preferable to trim-and-fill method for selection bias in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 282288.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
48. Hedges, LV. Modeling publication selection effects in meta-analysis. Stat Sci 1992; 7: 246255.
Google Scholar | Crossref
49. Silliman, NP. Hierarchical selection models with applications in meta-analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 1997; 92: 926936.
Google Scholar | Crossref
50. Copas, JB, Shi, JQ. A sensitivity analysis for publication bias in systematic reviews. Stat Meth Med Res 2001; 10: 251265.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
51. Copas, J, Dwan, K, Kirkham, J, et al. A model-based correction for outcome reporting bias in meta-analysis. Biostatistics 2013; 15: 370383.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
Access Options

My Account

Welcome
You do not have access to this content.



Chinese Institutions / 中国用户

Click the button below for the full-text content

请点击以下获取该全文

Institutional Access

does not have access to this content.

Purchase Content

24 hours online access to download content

Research off-campus without worrying about access issues. Find out about Lean Library here

Your Access Options


Purchase

SMM-article-ppv for $41.50
Single Issue 24 hour E-access for $543.66

Cookies Notification

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more.
Top