Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33132447›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics2020

Sensitivity analysis for publication bias in meta-analyses.

Maya B Mathur, Tyler J VanderWeele

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 173 papers, 83 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
173citing papers in PubMed, 83 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

173 citing papers in PubMed, 83 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Ginger Supplementation and Blood Pressure in Adults: A GRADE-Based Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 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

113 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

2 authors.

Maya B MathurStanford University Palo Alto USA.
Tyler J VanderWeeleHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Boston USA.

Funding

Theory and methods for mediation and interactionR01CA222147 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI TCHETGEN TCHETGEN, ERIC JOEL, VANDERWEELE, TYLER · 2018 to 2022
$2.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA222147
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We propose sensitivity analyses for publication bias in meta-analyses. We consider a publication process such that 'statistically significant' results are more likely to be published than negative or "non-significant" results by an unknown ratio,

Indexed as

File drawerMeta‐analysisPublication biasSensitivity analysis

Identifiers

PMID33132447
PMCPMC7590147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.