Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

By J. Sterne, A. Sutton, John P. A. Ioannidis, N. Terrin, David R. Jones, Joseph Lau, James R. Carpenter, Gerta Rücker, R. Harbord, Christopher H. Schmid and 9 more. British medical journal, 2011

6,663 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Pharmacology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/660168dbe48731c1dae7dfd14a0525404d8e59e5

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

In Pharmacology

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Whether Smaller Plates Reduce Consumption Depends on Who’s Serving and Who’s Looking: A Meta-Analysis (2016, neutral): “However, another possibility is that given the scalability of plate size, the variation in standard errors may represent different strength manipulations of plate size (Sterne et al. 2011).”
Introduction, comparison, and validation of Meta‐Essentials: A free and simple tool for meta‐analysis (2017, methodology): “In Meta‐Essentials, these publication bias analyses can be conducted and can even be run using a random effects model, which is often not appropriate.(68,69) Furthermore, the use of a substitution method between odds ratios and risk ratios, as discussed in Section 3.”
OpenMEE: Intuitive, open‐source software for meta‐analysis in ecology and evolutionary biology (2017, background): “However, we caution against mis-or over-interpretation of such diagnostics; see Becker (2005), Lau et al. (2006) and Sterne et al. (2011) for critical discussion on this issue.”
To What Extent and Under Which Circumstances Are Growth Mind-Sets Important to Academic Achievement? Two Meta-Analyses (2018, methodology): “However, Egger’s regression is prone to Type I errors when heterogeneity is high (Sterne et al., 2011), as is the case in the current meta-analysis.”
Depression and anxiety in relation to cancer incidence and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies (2019, neutral): “indicated the presence of reporting bias [29].”
Outdoor Particulate Matter Exposure and Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2014, methodology): “We did not conduct statistical tests for assessment of publication bias, because these tests are specific to randomized controlled trials (Sterne et al. 2011) and rely on assumptions that are not applicable to meta- analyses of observational research (Egger et al. 1998).”
Beyond cold technology: A systematic review and meta-analysis on emotions in technology-based learning environments (2018, methodology): “large effects derived from small studies which are potentially larger than those reported by larger studies (Sterne et al., 2011).”
Effect of exercise for depression: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (2024, methodology): “Given these tests are not recommended for comparisons with fewer than 10 studies, 51 those comparisons were considered to show “some concerns.””
Computerized Cognitive Training in Cognitively Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Effect Modifiers (2014, methodology): “…( p , 0.1), we report primary outcomes based on a fixed-effects model along with a random-effects model, as the former gives more weight to larger trials and helps to counterbalance a possible inflation of therapeutic effect [35]; in these cases we discuss the more conservative effect estimate.”