Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10845965›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2000

Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses.

A J Sutton, S J Duval, R L Tweedie, K R Abrams, D R Jones

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 528 papers, 82 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
528citing papers in PubMed, 82 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

528 citing papers in PubMed, 82 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Packing density and the angiographic results of coil embolization of intracranial aneurysms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Publication Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials of Hypospadias Surgical Repair: A Systematic Review.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2025
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Prevalence and risk factors of portal vein thrombosis following hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Phage Therapy in Bacterial Pneumonia Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening · 2025
    Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

468 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

A J SuttonDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 6TP.
S J Duval
R L Tweedie
K R Abrams
D R Jones

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the effect of publication bias on the results and conclusions of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

designAnalysis of published meta-analyses by trim and fill method. STUDIES: 48 reviews in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews that considered a binary endpoint and contained 10 or more individual studies.

main outcome measuresNumber of reviews with missing studies and effect on conclusions of meta-analyses.

resultsThe trim and fill fixed effects analysis method estimated that 26 (54%) of reviews had missing studies and in 10 the number missing was significant. The corresponding figures with a random effects model were 23 (48%) and eight. In four cases, statistical inferences regarding the effect of the intervention were changed after the overall estimate for publication bias was adjusted for.

conclusionsPublication or related biases were common within the sample of meta-analyses assessed. In most cases these biases did not affect the conclusions. Nevertheless, researchers should check routinely whether conclusions of systematic reviews are robust to possible non-random selection mechanisms.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicPublication BiasClinical Trials as TopicHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID10845965
PMCPMC27401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.