Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.

By J. Peters, A. Sutton, David R. Jones, K. Abrams, L. Rushton. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2006

2,094 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Quantifying Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis (2017, methodology): “…statistical tests have been proposed for publication bias in the funnel plot, such as Begg’s rank test (Begg and Mazumdar, 1994) and Egger’s regression test (Egger et al., 1997) and its extensions (e.g., Macaskill et al., 2001; Rothstein et al., 2005; Harbord et al., 2006; Peters et al., 2006).”
Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. (2010, methodology): “The 2000 HTA report on publication bias2 included two methods for testing funnel plot asymmetry: the rank correlation test by Begg and Mazumdar (1994)340 and a linear regression method by Egger et al.”
The trim-and-fill method for publication bias: practical guidelines and recommendations based on a large database of meta-analyses (2019, methodology): “Egger regression is known to produce inflated false positive rates for (log) OR,[20,25,51] so its estimated intercept may not accurately reflect the true direction of missing studies.”
Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between‐study heterogeneity (2007, background): “This can induce asymmetry that can be mistaken for publication bias [4, 5], but it”
Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on plant growth depend on root system: a meta-analysis (2014, background): “Thus, we examined whether our datasets were publication-biased (Peters et al. 2006).”