CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 503Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Epidemiologyscientometrics and bibliometrics research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta-analysis, funnel plots and sensitivity analysis

Open access
Copas, J.·2000·Biostatistics
DOI 10.1093/biostatistics/1.3.247
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Publication bias is a major problem, perhaps the major problem, in meta-analysis (or systematic reviews). Small studies are more likely to be published if their results are 'significant' than if their results are negative or inconclusive, and so the studies available for review are biased in favour of those with positive outcomes. Correcting for this bias is not possible without making untestable assumptions. In this paper, a sensitivity analysis is suggested which is based on fitting a model to the funnel plot. Some examples are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/biostatistics/1.3.247

Cites

19 of 19 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 19 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–502 of 502

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Copas, J.
Affiliations
University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Copas, J.
ORCID
Copas, J.
Venue
Biostatistics
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2000-09-01
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
247-262
ISSN
  • 1465-4644 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4357
DOI
10.1093/biostatistics/1.3.247
OpenAlex
W2111636520
Cited by
503
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 12
FWCI
2.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biostatistics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
  • Biometrics
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, funnel plot, sensitivity analysis, meta-analysis, small-study effects, bias correction

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