Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31273125›Full record

ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2020

The magnitude of small-study effects in the

Lifeng Lin, Linyu Shi, Haitao Chu, Mohammad Hassan Murad

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 25 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 25 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 25 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Assessing the role of ICD in Chagas heart disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2025
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema: network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    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
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

4 authors.

Lifeng Lin *Department of Statistics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3562-9816
Linyu Shi *Department of Statistics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
Haitao ChuDivision of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0932-598X
Mohammad Hassan MuradEvidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5502-5975

Funding

Women's CancerP30CA077598 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI Jeffrey S. Miller · 1998 to 2026
$100.4M
University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UL1TR002494 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R, WEISDORF, DANIEL J · 2018 to 2022
$34.9M
Statistical Methods and Software for Multivariate Meta-analysisR21LM012197 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI CHU, HAITAO · 2015 to 2016
$385k
Joint Meta-Regression Methods Accounting for Postrandomization VariablesR21LM012744 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI CHU, HAITAO · 2017 to 2018
$376k
Robust statistical methods and software for meta-analysis with outlying studiesR03HS024743 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI CHU, HAITAO · 2017 to 2017
$98k
AHRQ HHS R03 HS024743NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002494NCI NIH HHS P30 CA077598NLM NIH HHS R21 LM012197NLM NIH HHS R21 LM012744
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Publication bias, more generally termed as small-study effect, is a major threat to the validity of meta-analyses. Most meta-analysts rely on the p values from statistical tests to make a binary decision about the presence or absence of small-study effects. Measures are available to quantify small-study effects' magnitude, but the current literature lacks clear rules to help evidence users in judging whether such effects are minimal or substantial. This article aims to provide rules of thumb for interpreting the measures. We use six measures to evaluate small-study effects in 29 932 meta-analyses from the

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicData Interpretation, StatisticalEmpirical ResearchEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPublication Biasepidemiology

Identifiers

PMID31273125
PMCPMC6942244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.