Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: Guidelines on choice of axis

被引:2836
作者
Sterne, JAC [1 ]
Egger, M [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, MRC, Hlth Serv Res Collaborat, Dept Social Med, Bristol BS8 2PR, Avon, England
关键词
funnel plot; meta-analysis; randomized controlled trials; selection bias; publication bias; statistical method; systematic reviews;
D O I
10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00377-8
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Asymmetry in funnel plots may indicate publication bias in meta-analysis, but the shape of the plot in the absence of bias depends on the choice of axes. We evaluated standard error, precision (inverse of standard error), variance, inverse of variance, sample size and log sample size (vertical axis) and log odds ratio. log risk ratio and risk difference (horizontal axis). Standard error is likely to be the best choice for the vertical axis: the expected shape in the absence of bias corresponds to a symmetrical funnel, straight lines to indicate 95% confidence intervals can be included and the plot emphasises smaller studies which are more prone to bias. Precision or inverse of variance is useful when comparing meta-analyses of small trials with subsequent large trials. The use of sample size or log sample size is problematic because the expected shape of the plot in the absence of bias is unpredictable. We found similar evidence for asymmetry and between trial variation in a sample of 78 published meta-analyses whether odds ratios or risk ratios were used on the horizontal axis. Different conclusions were reached for risk differences and this was related to increased between-trial variation. We conclude that funnel plots of meta-analyses should generally use standard error as the measure of study size and ratio measures of treatment effect. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1046 / 1055
页数:10
相关论文
共 40 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1998, Stata Technical Bulletin STB
  • [2] OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF A BANK CORRELATION TEST FOR PUBLICATION BIAS
    BEGG, CB
    MAZUMDAR, M
    [J]. BIOMETRICS, 1994, 50 (04) : 1088 - 1101
  • [3] PUBLICATION BIAS - A PROBLEM IN INTERPRETING MEDICAL DATA
    BEGG, CB
    BERLIN, JA
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, 1988, 151 : 419 - 463
  • [4] Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials - How do their results compare?
    Cappelleri, JC
    Ioannidis, JPA
    Schmid, CH
    deFerranti, SD
    Aubert, M
    Chalmers, TC
    Lau, J
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 276 (16): : 1332 - 1338
  • [5] COLLINS R, 1995, LANCET, V345, P669
  • [6] What works?: selectivity models and meta-analysis
    Copas, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, 1999, 162 : 95 - 109
  • [7] Reanalysis of epidemiological evidence on lung cancer and passive smoking
    Copas, JB
    Shi, JQ
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 320 (7232) : 417 - 418
  • [8] DAVEYSMITH G, 1994, BRIT MED J, V308, P72
  • [9] THE FATE OF ABSTRACTS SUBMITTED TO A CANCER MEETING - FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE PRESENTATION AND SUBSEQUENT PUBLICATION
    DEBELLEFEUILLE, C
    MORRISON, CA
    TANNOCK, IF
    [J]. ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 1992, 3 (03) : 187 - 191
  • [10] Deeks JJ., 2001, SYSTEMATIC REV HLTH, V2nd ed, DOI DOI 10.1002/9780470693926.CH15