CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 449Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Epidemiologyscientometrics and bibliometrics research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Investigating and Dealing with Publication and Other Biases

Sterne, Jonathan A C, Egger, Matthias, Smith, George Davey·2001·Systematic Reviews in Health Care
DOI 10.1002/9780470693926.ch11
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This chapter contains section titled: Summary Points Funnel Plots Other Graphical Methods Statistical Methods to Detect and Correct for Bias Conclusions Acknowledgements

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/9780470693926.ch11

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. SterneJAC EggerM. High false positive rate for trim and fill method (electronic letter).http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7249/1574
  2. Begg CB., 1997, Publication bias in meta‐analysis, Stat Sci, 12, 241
  3. Irwig L, 1998, Graphical test is itself biased, BMJ, 316, 470

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 449

Related

Metadata

Authors
Sterne, J. A. C., Egger, M., & Smith, G. D.
ORCID
Venue
Systematic Reviews in Health Care
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-01
Pages
189-208
DOI
10.1002/9780470693926.ch11
OpenAlex
W1606586277
Cited by
449
References
50
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 43
Type
other
Language
en
Open access
closed
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
publication bias, reporting bias, funnel plot, bias detection, bias correction, meta-analysis, graphical method

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review