Cited by 318Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

How to read a funnel plot in a meta-analysis

Sedgwick, Philip, Marston, Louise·2015·BMJ

Abstract

Researchers undertook a meta-analysis of the effects of home blood pressure monitoring on blood pressure levels. Randomised controlled trials were included if home or “self” monitoring was compared with standard monitoring in the healthcare system. Participants were patients with essential hypertension, followed for two to 36 months. The main outcomes included measurements of systolic and diastolic blood pressure and the achievement of hypertension targets.1 Eighteen trials were eligible for inclusion. When the results of the trials were combined, home monitoring resulted in significantly lower systolic blood pressure than standard monitoring (mean difference 4.2 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 6.9) and significantly lower diastolic blood pressure (2.4 mm Hg, 1.2 to 3.5). Home monitoring patients were more likely to achieve predetermined targets (relative risk 1.11, 1.00 to 1.11). The researchers presented funnel plots for the outcomes of systolic and diastolic blood pressure (figure⇓). Egger’s test gave P=0.038 for systolic blood pressure and P=0.095 for diastolic blood pressure. Funnel plots for the meta-analysis of the effects on blood pressure of home monitoring compared with standard monitoring in the healthcare system It was concluded that home monitoring results in lower blood pressure than standard monitoring. Although the difference in blood pressure between the two methods was small it may contribute to an important reduction in vascular complications in the hypertensive population. Which of the following statements, if any, are true?

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.h4718

Cites

4 of 4 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
Sedgwick, P., & Marston, L.
Affiliations
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Sedgwick, Philip
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-09-16
Volume
351
Pages
h4718
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2211524874
Cited by
318
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2013: 1
FWCI
13.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
funnel plot, publication bias, Egger's test, home blood pressure monitoring, self-monitoring, essential hypertension, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, meta-analysis interpretation
MeSH terms
Blood Pressure Determination, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic

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