Bias in Meta-Analysis Detected by a Simple, Graphical Test¶
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in Meta-Analysis Detected by a Simple, Graphical Test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629-634.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Paradox of Unanimity
- In scientific replication and meta-analysis, a literature in which every study confirms an effect is read as evidence of publication bias, p-hacking, or a shared confound, and funnel-plot asymmetry tests exploit exactly this shape.
This sourceFunnel-plot asymmetry exploits too-uniform agreement across studies as a signature of publication bias.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Egger et al. show that funnel-plot asymmetry tests detect bias in meta-analyses, but the abstract does not discuss unanimous-confirmation literatures.
“A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses”
- In scientific replication and meta-analysis, a literature in which every study confirms an effect is read as evidence of publication bias, p-hacking, or a shared confound, and funnel-plot asymmetry tests exploit exactly this shape.
- Selection Bias
This sourceEgger funnel plot meta-analysis publication bias detection.
Domain-specific¶
- Funnel Plot Asymmetry
- The textbook case is intravenous magnesium after acute myocardial infarction, used by Egger et al. (BMJ, 1997) to introduce their regression test.
This sourceIntroduces the regression of standardised effect on precision as a test of funnel plot asymmetry and reports the intravenous-magnesium-after-myocardial-infarction meta-analysis as markedly asymmetric (intercept -1.36, P=0.005) — one of four meta-analysis/large-trial discordant pairs within a survey of 75 meta-analyses, rather than the paper's sole worked example.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- The textbook case is intravenous magnesium after acute myocardial infarction, used by Egger et al. (BMJ, 1997) to introduce their regression test.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 3 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:729991d1defd · see in the full table