IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/biomet/v74y2018i3p795-796.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discussion on Quantifying publication bias in meta‐analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Dan Jackson

Abstract

In this discussion, I will describe some issues that are related to the article presented by Lin and Chu. In particular, I discuss three concerns that should be addressed before their methodology may be accepted for general use.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan Jackson, 2018. "Discussion on Quantifying publication bias in meta‐analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(3), pages 795-796, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:biomet:v:74:y:2018:i:3:p:795-796
    DOI: 10.1111/biom.12819
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12819
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/biom.12819?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Copas & Claudia Lozada‐Can, 2009. "The radial plot in meta‐analysis: approximations and applications," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58(3), pages 329-344, July.
    2. Jaime L. Peters & Alex J. Sutton & David R. Jones & Keith R. Abrams & Lesley Rushton & Santiago G. Moreno, 2010. "Assessing publication bias in meta‐analyses in the presence of between‐study heterogeneity," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(3), pages 575-591, July.
    3. Dan Jackson, 2007. "Assessing the Implications of Publication Bias for Two Popular Estimates of between-Study Variance in Meta-Analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(1), pages 187-193, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hans C. van Houwelingen, 2020. "Discussion on “Testing small study effects in multivariate meta‐analysis” by Chuan Hong, Georgia Salanti, Sally Morton, Richard Riley, Haitao Chu, Stephen E. Kimmel and Yong Chen," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 1251-1254, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Augusteijn, Hilde & van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2017. "The Effect of Publication Bias on the Assessment of Heterogeneity," OSF Preprints gv25c, Center for Open Science.
    2. Augusteijn, Hilde Elisabeth Maria & van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2021. "Posterior Probabilities of Effect Sizes and Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis: An Intuitive Approach of Dealing with Publication Bias," OSF Preprints avkgj, Center for Open Science.
    3. Lifeng Lin & Haitao Chu, 2018. "Rejoinder to “quantifying publication bias in meta‐analysis”," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(3), pages 801-802, September.
    4. Johannes Hönekopp & Audrey Helen Linden, 2022. "Heterogeneity estimates in a biased world," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-21, February.
    5. Polák, Petr, 2017. "The productivity paradox: A meta-analysis," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 38-54.
    6. Stanley, T. D. & Doucouliagos, Hristos, 2013. "Better than random: weighted least squares meta-regression analysis," Working Papers eco_2013_2, Deakin University, Department of Economics.
    7. Celbis, Mehmet Güney & Nijkamp, Peter & Poot, Jacques, 2013. "How big is the impact of infrastructure on trade? Evidence from meta-analysis," MERIT Working Papers 2013-032, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    8. John B. Copas & Dan Jackson & Ian R. White & Richard D. Riley, 2018. "The role of secondary outcomes in multivariate meta‐analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(5), pages 1177-1205, November.
    9. Anna Chaimani & Julian P T Higgins & Dimitris Mavridis & Panagiota Spyridonos & Georgia Salanti, 2013. "Graphical Tools for Network Meta-Analysis in STATA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-12, October.
    10. Sergio Nolazco & Kaspar Delhey & Shinichi Nakagawa & Anne Peters, 2022. "Ornaments are equally informative in male and female birds," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:biomet:v:74:y:2018:i:3:p:795-796. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0006-341X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.