The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta‐analysis
Abstract
Publication bias is an inevitable problem in the systematic review and meta‐analysis. It is also one of the main threats to the validity of meta‐analysis. Although several statistical methods have been developed to detect and adjust for the publication bias since the beginning of 1980s, some of them are not well known and are not being used properly in both the statistical and clinical literature. In this paper, we provided a critical and extensive discussion on the methods for dealing with publication bias, including statistical principles, implementation, and software, as well as the advantages and limitations of these methods. We illustrated a practical application of these methods in a meta‐analysis of continuous support for women during childbirth. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., Carpenter, J., Rucker, G., Harbord, R. M., Schmid, C. H., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002 · Cited by 7,709
Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., & Egger, M. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00377-8 · Cited by 3,779
A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905 · Cited by 2,955
Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments
(2005) · doi:10.1002/0470870168 · Cited by 2,368
Publication and related bias in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., Gavaghan, D., & Egger, M. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00242-0 · Cited by 2,282
A modified test for small‐study effects in meta‐analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints
Harbord, R. M., Egger, M., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2006) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2380 · Cited by 2,267 · cited 5×
“Harbord’s More power than funnel Inappropriate type I error All the data in Table I should test [8] regression under the rate when heterogeneity be extracted from primary appropriate type I error rate present, but better than studies.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta‐analysis
Macaskill, P., Walter, S. D., & Irwig, L. (2001) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.698 · Cited by 1,286
Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1348/000711010x502733 · Cited by 1,162
Cited by
Panethnic Differences in Blood Pressure in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Modesti, P. A., Reboldi, G., Cappuccio, F. P., Agyemang, C., Remuzzi, G., Rapi, S., Perruolo, E., Parati, G., & ESH Working Group on CV Risk in Low Resource Settings (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147601 · Cited by 1,366
Shi, L., & Lin, L. (2019) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000015987 · Cited by 818
McShane, B. B., Böckenholt, U., & Hansen, K. T. (2016) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691616662243 · Cited by 398
Sensitivity Analysis for Publication Bias in Meta-Analyses
Mathur, M. B., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2020) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics · doi:10.1111/rssc.12440 · Cited by 354
Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis
Page, M. J., Higgins, J. P., & Sterne, J. A. (2019) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch13 · Cited by 402
Metadata
- Authors
- Jin, Z., Zhou, X., & He, J.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-11-03
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 343-360
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2025809089
- Cited by
- 252
- References
- 20
- FWCI
- 9.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sim.6342
- The paper
- Jin, Z., Zhou, X., & He, J. (2015). Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6342
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
