1
$\begingroup$

For my final thesis I performed a meta-analysis with different subsets (subgroup analysis). Although I systematically searched the literature (I was brutally sophisticated), depending which subset I analyze, the Egger's Test is significant or not, indicating publicaton bias or not.

However, on the undifferentiated subset although the Egger's Test is significant, the Trim and Fill method does not add any studies to the sample.

Trim and Fill method is based on:

Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. 2000a. A Nonparametric “ Trim and Fill ” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(449): 89–98.

Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. 2000b. Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel-Plot-Based Method. Biometrics, 56(June): 455–463.

I have several questions:

1) How to interpret that depending on the subset analyzed, the Egger's test is significant or not (I cannot derive a pattern or something similar).

2) Why does Trim and Fill not add studies, although Egger's Test is significant?

3) Would you add any additional tests?

I will now add some pictures of the results, so you can better follow my thoughts. Thanks for any help.

Results of Hedges and Olkin MA Trim & Fill Results

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Welcome to our site! You might want to add a citation for the "trim and fill" method $\endgroup$
    – Silverfish
    Commented Sep 23, 2016 at 13:18
  • $\begingroup$ One possible explanation is that Egger's method is parametric and Duval and Tweedie's is non-parametric. $\endgroup$
    – mdewey
    Commented Sep 23, 2016 at 15:11
  • $\begingroup$ @mdewey can u explain that a bit more sophisticatedly? I am no expert. $\endgroup$
    – Feal
    Commented Sep 23, 2016 at 15:41
  • $\begingroup$ Please be aware that there are multiple papers recommending that you should not use Egger's test and the trim and fill method in the presence of between-study heterogeneity. Since your I^2 are very high, you have to be very carful in interpreting the results of these methods. Some references: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12820277 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17420491 $\endgroup$
    – User33
    Commented Sep 24, 2016 at 9:07
  • $\begingroup$ @mdewey ha, thats what i've found out in the meantime as well. Thanks for ur patience & help. $\endgroup$
    – Feal
    Commented Sep 24, 2016 at 9:51

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

There is no particular reason to expect all the methods of looking for small study bias to agree. Song and colleagues here compared Egger, Begg, and Duval and Tweedie and showed that they did not always agree, see their Figure 1 for a quick insight.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Well, still i am a bit confused how to interpret the results in the light of what these tests are telling me? Would you mind to give me a hint? $\endgroup$
    – Feal
    Commented Sep 23, 2016 at 16:10
  • $\begingroup$ That must depend on (a) what your hypothesis about the small study effects was (b) what the actual shape of the funnel plot is like (c) what additional information you might have about the studies involved (d) perhaps something else which I have not thought of. $\endgroup$
    – mdewey
    Commented Sep 23, 2016 at 21:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.