Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between‐study heterogeneity

688 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.

Sample Sizes and Effect Sizes are Negatively Correlated in Meta-Analyses: Evidence and Implications of a Publication Bias Against NonSignificant Findings (2009, background): “Unfortunately, like the funnel plots, the trim and fill can indicate publication bias due to heterogeneity of effects where no publication bias is present (Peters et al., 2007; Terrin, Schmid, Lau, & Olkin, 2003).”
Does the Flipped Classroom Improve Student Learning and Satisfaction? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2019, methodology): “very accurate (Peters et al., 2007), both adjustments together”
Mozart effect–Shmozart effect: A meta-analysis (2010, methodology): “According to the procedure in the presence of between-study heterogeneity as described by Peters et al. (2007) we based the trim-and-fill process on a fixed-effect model but estimated the adjusted overall effect sizes using a randomeffects model.”
A Systematic Review of Personality Trait Change Through Intervention (2017, methodology): “Techniques commonly used in psychological research, such as trim-and-fill (Duval & Tweedie, 2000) or the failsafe N (Rosenthal, 1979), have been thoroughly criticized (Moreno et al., 2009; Peters et al., 2007; Sutton, 2009).”