Cited by 522Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMental Health Research Topics

Using network meta‐analysis to evaluate the existence of small‐study effects in a network of interventions

Chaimani, Anna, Salanti, Georgia·2012·Research Synthesis Methods

Abstract

Suggested methods for exploring the presence of small‐study effects in a meta‐analysis and the possibility of publication bias are associated with important limitations. When a meta‐analysis comprises only a few studies, funnel plots are difficult to interpret, and regression‐based approaches to test and account for small‐study effects have low power. Assuming that the cause of funnel plot asymmetry is likely to affect an entire research field rather than only a particular comparison of interventions, we suggest that network meta‐regression is employed to account for small‐study effects in a set of related meta‐analyses. We present several possible models for the direction and distribution of small‐study effects and we describe the methods by re‐analysing two published networks. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jrsm.57

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chaimani, A., & Salanti, G.
Affiliations
University of Ioannina (GR)
Corresponding author
Salanti, Georgia
Venue
Research Synthesis Methods
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-06
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
161-176
ISSN
  • 1759-2879 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-2887
OpenAlex
W2121796373
Cited by
521
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI
8.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Research Synthesis Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
uropean Research Council (IMMA 260559)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
small-study effects, publication bias, network meta-regression, network meta-analysis, funnel plot asymmetry

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