Empirical Comparison of Publication Bias Tests in Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT Background Decision makers rely on meta-analytic estimates to trade off benefits and harms. Publication bias impairs the validity and generalizability of such estimates. The performance of various statistical tests for publication bias has been largely compared using simulation studies and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM 2018-08, Vol.33 (8), p.1260-1267
Main Authors: Lin, Lifeng, Chu, Haitao, Murad, Mohammad Hassan, Hong, Chuan, Qu, Zhiyong, Cole, Stephen R., Chen, Yong
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bias
Clinical trials
Decision analysis
Empirical analysis
Empirical Research
Humans
Internal Medicine
Medical research
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Meta-analysis
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Original Research
Publication Bias - statistics & numerical data
Regression analysis
Statistical analysis
Statistical tests
Systematic Reviews as Topic
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:ABSTRACT Background Decision makers rely on meta-analytic estimates to trade off benefits and harms. Publication bias impairs the validity and generalizability of such estimates. The performance of various statistical tests for publication bias has been largely compared using simulation studies and has not been systematically evaluated in empirical data. Methods This study compares seven commonly used publication bias tests (i.e., Begg’s rank test, trim-and-fill, Egger’s, Tang’s, Macaskill’s, Deeks’, and Peters’ regression tests) based on 28,655 meta-analyses available in the Cochrane Library. Results Egger’s regression test detected publication bias more frequently than other tests (15.7% in meta-analyses of binary outcomes and 13.5% in meta-analyses of non-binary outcomes). The proportion of statistically significant publication bias tests was greater for larger meta-analyses, especially for Begg’s rank test and the trim-and-fill method. The agreement among Tang’s, Macaskill’s, Deeks’, and Peters’ regression tests for binary outcomes was moderately strong (most κ ’s were around 0.6). Tang’s and Deeks’ tests had fairly similar performance ( κ  > 0.9). The agreement among Begg’s rank test, the trim-and-fill method, and Egger’s regression test was weak or moderate ( κ
ISSN:0884-8734
1525-1497
1525-1497
DOI:10.1007/s11606-018-4425-7