CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 288Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Epidemiologyscientometrics and bibliometrics research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Modelling publication bias in meta-analysis: a review

Sutton, Alexander J, Song, Fujian, Gilbody, Simon M, Abrams, Keith R·2000·Statistical Methods in Medical Research
DOI 10.1177/096228020000900503
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Meta-analysis is now a widely used technique for summarizing evidence from multiple studies. Publication bias, the bias induced by the fact that research with statistically significant results is potentially more likely to be submitted and published than work with null or non-significant results, poses a thereat to the validity of such analyses. The implication of this is that combining only the identified published studies uncritically may lead to an incorrect, usually over optimistic, conclusion. How publication bias should be addressed when carrying out a meta-analysis is currently a hotly debated subject. While statistical methods to test for its presence are starting be used, they do not address the problem of how to proceed if publication bias is suspected. This paper provides a review of methods, which can be employed as a sensitivity analysis to assess the likely impact of publication bias on a meta-analysis. It is hoped that this will raise awareness of such methods, and promote their use and development, as well as provide an agenda for future research.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/096228020000900503

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Chalmers TC., 1982, Transactions of the American Clinical Climatology Association, 94, 204
  2. 10.2307/1164832 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Champney TF. Adjustments for selection: publication bias in quantitative research synthesis. Doctoral thesis, University of Chicago, 1983.
  4. Hedges LV., 1998, Statistical analysis of medical data
  5. Wasserman L., 1998, Bayesian statistics 4, 483
  6. Eberly LE, 1996, Estimating the number of unseen studies
  7. Sugita M, 1992, Japnese Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 354
  8. Sugita M, 1994, Tokai Journal of Experimental Clinical Medicine, 19, 29

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 288

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Sutton, A. J., Song, F., Gilbody, S. M., & Abrams, K. R.
Affiliations
  • Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK,
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Statistical Methods in Medical Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2000-10
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
421-445
ISSN
  • 0962-2802 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0334
DOI
10.1177/096228020000900503
OpenAlex
W2009813561
Cited by
288
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 11
FWCI
11.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Statistical Methods in Medical Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
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, meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, bias correction, statistical significance, negative results, research validity
MeSH terms
Bayes Theorem, Data Interpretation, Statistical, United Kingdom, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Models, Statistical, Publication Bias

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