The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The validity of a meta-analysis can be understood better in light of the possible impact of publication bias. The majority of the methods to investigate publication bias in terms of small study-effects are developed for meta-analyses of intervention studies, leaving authors of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews with limited guidance. The aim of this study was to evaluate if and how publication bias was assessed in meta-analyses of DTA, and to compare the results of various statistical methods used to assess publication bias. METHODS: A systematic search was initiated to identify DTA reviews with a meta-analysis published between September 2011 and January 2012. We extracted all information about publication bias from the reviews and the two-by-two tables. Existing statistical methods for the detection of publication bias were applied on data from the included studies. RESULTS: Out of 1,335 references, 114 reviews could be included. Publication bias was explicitly mentioned in 75 reviews (65.8%) and 47 of these had performed statistical methods to investigate publication bias in terms of small study-effects: 6 by drawing funnel plots, 16 by statistical testing and 25 by applying both methods. The applied tests were Egger's test (n = 18), Deeks' test (n = 12), Begg's test (n = 5), both the Egger and Begg tests (n = 4), and other tests (n = 2). Our own comparison of the results of Begg's, Egger's and Deeks' test for 92 meta-analyses indicated that up to 34% of the results did not correspond with one another. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of DTA review authors mention or investigate publication bias. They mainly use suboptimal methods like the Begg and Egger tests that are not developed for DTA meta-analyses. Our comparison of the Begg, Egger and Deeks tests indicated that these tests do give different results and thus are not interchangeable. Deeks' test is recommended for DTA meta-analyses and should be preferred.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
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
Deeks, J. J., Macaskill, P., & Irwig, L. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016 · Cited by 2,910
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 · cited 1×
“These forms of biases tend to have more effect on small studies and contribute to the phenomenon of “small study-effects” [7].”
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 1×
“The applied tests were Egger’s test (n = 18), Deeks’ test (n = 12), Begg’s test (n = 5), both the Egger and Begg test (n = 4), and both the Begg-Mazumdar and Harbord’s test [70].”
MethodManea, L., Gilbody, S., & McMillan, D. (2012) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.110829 · Cited by 1,966
Hernaez, R., Lazo, M., Bonekamp, S., Kamel, I., Brancati, F. L., Guallar, E., & Clark, J. M. (2011) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.24452 · Cited by 1,585
Cited by
McInnes, M. D. F., Moher, D., Thombs, B. D., McGrath, T. A., Bossuyt, P. M., and the PRISMA-DTA Group, Clifford, T., Cohen, J. F., Deeks, J. J., Gatsonis, C., et al. (2018) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19163 · Cited by 3,210
Self-citationSalameh, J.-P., Bossuyt, P. M., McGrath, T. A., Thombs, B. D., Hyde, C. J., Macaskill, P., Deeks, J. J., Leeflang, M., Korevaar, D. A., Whiting, P., et al. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m2632 · Cited by 719
Self-citationAssociation Between Sarcopenia and Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Chang, K.-V., Hsu, T.-H., Wu, W.-T., Huang, K.-C., & Han, D.-S. (2016) · Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2016.09.013 · Cited by 448
Serial interval and incubation period of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Alene, M., Yismaw, L., Assemie, M. A., Ketema, D. B., Gietaneh, W., & Birhan, T. Y. (2021) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-021-05950-x · Cited by 354
Brümmer, L. E., Katzenschlager, S., Gaeddert, M., Erdmann, C., Schmitz, S., Bota, M., Grilli, M., Larmann, J., Weigand, M. A., Pollock, N. R., et al. (2021) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003735 · Cited by 298
Metadata
- Authors
- van Enst, W. A., Ochodo, E., Scholten, R. J., Hooft, L., & Leeflang, M. M.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2014-05-23
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 70-70
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2169792285
- Cited by
- 429
- References
- 76
- FWCI
- 15.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2288-14-70
- The paper
- van Enst, W. A., Ochodo, E., Scholten, R. J., Hooft, L., & Leeflang, M. M. (2014). Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-70
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.
