Standardized mean differences cause funnel plot distortion in publication bias assessments

  1. Peter-Paul Zwetsloot  Is a corresponding author
  2. Mira Van Der Naald
  3. Emily S Sena
  4. David W Howells
  5. Joanna IntHout
  6. Joris AH De Groot
  7. Steven AJ Chamuleau
  8. Malcolm R MacLeod
  9. Kimberley E Wever  Is a corresponding author
  1. University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands
  2. University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  3. University of Tasmania, Australia
  4. Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Netherlands
  5. The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  6. Radboud University Medical Center, Netherlands

Abstract

Meta-analyses are increasingly used for synthesis of evidence, and often include an assessment of publication bias based on detection of asymmetry in funnel plots. We studied the influence of different normalisation approaches, sample size and intervention effects on funnel plot asymmetry, using empirical datasets and illustrative simulations. We found that funnel plots of the Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) plotted against the standard error (SE) are susceptible to distortion, leading to overestimation of the existence and extent of publication bias. Distortion was more severe when the primary studies had a small sample size and when an intervention effect was present. We show that using the Normalised Mean Difference (when possible), or plotting the SMD against a sample size-based precision estimate, are more reliable alternatives. We conclude that funnel plots using the SMD in combination with the SE are unsuitable for publication bias assessments and can lead to false-positive results.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Peter-Paul Zwetsloot

    Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    P.P.M.Zwetsloot@umcutrecht.nl
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Mira Van Der Naald

    Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Emily S Sena

    Center for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. David W Howells

    School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Joanna IntHout

    Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Joris AH De Groot

    Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Steven AJ Chamuleau

    Department of Cardiology, Experimental Cardiology Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Malcolm R MacLeod

    Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Kimberley E Wever

    Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
    For correspondence
    kim.wever@radboudumc.nl
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3635-3660

Funding

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (National Toxicology Program research funding)

  • Kimberley E Wever

Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative (CVON-HUSTCARE)

  • Steven AJ Chamuleau

National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (Infrastructure Award)

  • Emily S Sena
  • Malcolm R MacLeod

Alexander Suerman program (PhD student Scholarship)

  • Peter-Paul Zwetsloot

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. M Dawn Teare, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom

Version history

  1. Received: December 14, 2016
  2. Accepted: August 21, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 8, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: September 29, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2017, Zwetsloot et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,826
    views
  • 429
    downloads
  • 128
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Peter-Paul Zwetsloot
  2. Mira Van Der Naald
  3. Emily S Sena
  4. David W Howells
  5. Joanna IntHout
  6. Joris AH De Groot
  7. Steven AJ Chamuleau
  8. Malcolm R MacLeod
  9. Kimberley E Wever
(2017)
Standardized mean differences cause funnel plot distortion in publication bias assessments
eLife 6:e24260.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.24260

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.24260

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Lijun Bian, Zhimin Ma ... Guangfu Jin
    Research Article

    Background:

    Age is the most important risk factor for cancer, but aging rates are heterogeneous across individuals. We explored a new measure of aging-Phenotypic Age (PhenoAge)-in the risk prediction of site-specific and overall cancer.

    Methods:

    Using Cox regression models, we examined the association of Phenotypic Age Acceleration (PhenoAgeAccel) with cancer incidence by genetic risk group among 374,463 participants from the UK Biobank. We generated PhenoAge using chronological age and nine biomarkers, PhenoAgeAccel after subtracting the effect of chronological age by regression residual, and an incidence-weighted overall cancer polygenic risk score (CPRS) based on 20 cancer site-specific polygenic risk scores (PRSs).

    Results:

    Compared with biologically younger participants, those older had a significantly higher risk of overall cancer, with hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.22 (95% confidence interval, 1.18–1.27) in men, and 1.26 (1.22–1.31) in women, respectively. A joint effect of genetic risk and PhenoAgeAccel was observed on overall cancer risk, with HRs of 2.29 (2.10–2.51) for men and 1.94 (1.78–2.11) for women with high genetic risk and older PhenoAge compared with those with low genetic risk and younger PhenoAge. PhenoAgeAccel was negatively associated with the number of healthy lifestyle factors (Beta = –1.01 in men, p<0.001; Beta = –0.98 in women, p<0.001).

    Conclusions:

    Within and across genetic risk groups, older PhenoAge was consistently related to an increased risk of incident cancer with adjustment for chronological age and the aging process could be retarded by adherence to a healthy lifestyle.

    Funding:

    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82230110, 82125033, 82388102 to GJ; 82273714 to MZ); and the Excellent Youth Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20220100 to MZ).

    1. Epidemiology and Global Health
    Zhanwei Du, Lin Wang ... Lauren A Meyers
    Short Report

    Paxlovid, a SARS-CoV-2 antiviral, not only prevents severe illness but also curtails viral shedding, lowering transmission risks from treated patients. By fitting a mathematical model of within-host Omicron viral dynamics to electronic health records data from 208 hospitalized patients in Hong Kong, we estimate that Paxlovid can inhibit over 90% of viral replication. However, its effectiveness critically depends on the timing of treatment. If treatment is initiated three days after symptoms first appear, we estimate a 17% chance of a post-treatment viral rebound and a 12% (95% CI: 0%-16%) reduction in overall infectiousness for non-rebound cases. Earlier treatment significantly elevates the risk of rebound without further reducing infectiousness, whereas starting beyond five days reduces its efficacy in curbing peak viral shedding. Among the 104 patients who received Paxlovid, 62% began treatment within an optimal three-to-five-day day window after symptoms appeared. Our findings indicate that broader global access to Paxlovid, coupled with appropriately timed treatment, can mitigate the severity and transmission of SARS-Cov-2.