Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29204324›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2017

Examining publication bias-a simulation-based evaluation of statistical tests on publication bias.

Andreas Schneck

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Association between postoperative delirium and mortality in elderly patients undergoing hip fractures surgery: a meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

1 author.

Andreas SchneckDepartment of Sociology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublication bias is a form of scientific misconduct. It threatens the validity of research results and the credibility of science. Although several tests on publication bias exist, no in-depth evaluations are available that examine which test performs best for different research settings.

methodsFour tests on publication bias, Egger's test (FAT), p-uniform, the test of excess significance (TES), as well as the caliper test, were evaluated in a Monte Carlo simulation. Two different types of publication bias and its degree (0%, 50%, 100%) were simulated. The type of publication bias was defined either as

resultsAll tests evaluated were able to identify publication bias both in the DISCUSSION: The FAT is recommended as a test for publication bias in standard meta-analyses with no or only small effect heterogeneity. If two-sided publication bias is suspected as well as under

Indexed as

Caliper testEgger’s testFATMonte carlo simulationPublication biasp-uniformStatisticsTest for excess significance

Identifiers

PMID29204324
PMCPMC5712469

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.