Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16276033›Full record

ArticleJournal of epidemiology2005

Systematic evaluation and comparison of statistical tests for publication bias.

Yasuaki Hayashino, Yoshinori Noguchi, Tsuguya Fukui

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of epidemiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 209 papers, 113 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
209citing papers in PubMed, 113 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

209 citing papers in PubMed, 113 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Association Between Polymorphisms of 4 Common Genes and High Myopia Risk: A Comprehensive Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yasuaki HayashinoDepartment of Epidemiology and Healthcare Research, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Yoshida-Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan. hayasino@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp
Yoshinori Noguchi
Tsuguya Fukui

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study evaluates the statistical and discriminatory powers of three statistical test methods (Begg's, Egger's, and Macaskill's) to detect publication bias in meta-analyses.

methodsThe data sources were 130 reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002 issue, which considered a binary endpoint and contained 10 or more individual studies. Funnel plots with observers'agreements were selected as a reference standard. We evaluated a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity by varying cut-off p-values, power of statistical tests given fixed false positive rates, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

resultsIn 36 reviews, 733 original studies evaluated 2,874,006 subjects. The number of trials included in each ranged from 10 to 70 (median 14.5). Given that the false positive rate was 0.1, the sensitivity of Egger's method was 0.93, and was larger than that of Begg's method (0.86) and Macaskill's method (0.43). The sensitivities of three statistical tests increased as the cut-off p-values increased without a substantial decrement of specificities. The area under the ROC curve of Egger's method was 0.955 (95% confidence interval, 0.889-1.000) and was not different from that of Begg's method (area=0.913, p=0.2302), but it was larger than that of Macaskill's method (area=0.719, p=0.0116).

conclusionEgger's linear regression method and Begg's method had stronger statistical and discriminatory powers than Macaskill's method for detecting publication bias given the same type I error level. The power of these methods could be improved by increasing the cut-off p-value without a substantial increment of false positive rate.

Indexed as

Publication BiasLinear ModelsMeta-Analysis as TopicROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID16276033
PMCPMC7904376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.