Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Methodology

Quantifying the risk of error when interpreting funnel plots

Author: Mark Simmonds

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Funnel plots are widely used to investigate possible publication bias in meta-analyses. There has, however, been little formal assessment of whether a visual inspection of a funnel plot is sufficient to identify publication bias.

Methods

Visual assessment of bias in a funnel plot is quantified using two new statistics: the Imbalance and the Asymmetry Distance, both intended to replicate how a funnel plot is typically assessed. A simulation study was performed to assess the performance of these two statistics for identifying publication bias.

Results

The two statistics both have high type I error and low statistical power, unless the number of studies in the meta-analysis is very large. These results suggest that visual inspection of a funnel plot is unlikely to lead to a valid assessment of publication bias.

Conclusions

In most systematic reviews, visual inspection of a funnel plot may give a misleading impression of the presence or absence of publication bias. Formal statistical tests for bias should generally be preferred.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurence. JAMA. 1990;263:1385–9.PubMedCrossRef Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurence. JAMA. 1990;263:1385–9.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1984. Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1984.
3.
go back to reference Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.PubMedCrossRef Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Raudenbush SW. Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects on pupil IQ as a function of the credibility of expectancy induction: a synthesis of findings from 18 experiments. J Educ Psychol. 1984;76(1):85–97.CrossRef Raudenbush SW. Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects on pupil IQ as a function of the credibility of expectancy induction: a synthesis of findings from 18 experiments. J Educ Psychol. 1984;76(1):85–97.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J. In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(9):894–901.PubMedCrossRef Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J. In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(9):894–901.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Tang J-L, Liu JLY. Misleading funnel plot for detection of bias in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(5):477–84.PubMedCrossRef Tang J-L, Liu JLY. Misleading funnel plot for detection of bias in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(5):477–84.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Copas J, Shi JQ. Meta-analysis, funnel plots and sensitivity analysis. Biostatistics. 2000;1(3):247–62.PubMedCrossRef Copas J, Shi JQ. Meta-analysis, funnel plots and sensitivity analysis. Biostatistics. 2000;1(3):247–62.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Quantifying the risk of error when interpreting funnel plots
Author
Mark Simmonds
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0004-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Systematic Reviews 1/2015 Go to the issue