Skip to main content

Table 1 Overview of the applied methods to investigate publication bias

From: Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study

Reference Funnel plot Results of the funnel plot Test Results of the test Remarks
  x-axis y-axis     
Chang 2011 [23] - - - Egger 3/7  
Chang 2012 [24] Sensitivity Specificity SE Not considered Begg Egger 1/2 1/2  
Cheng 2012 [25] lnDOR 1/root(ESS) No publication bias Not specified 0/2  
Descatha 2012 [26] lnDOR 1/root(ESS) No publication bias Deeks 0/2  
Dong 2011 [27] - - - Begg Egger 0/1 0/1 Results for a second diagnostic tool were not presented.
Dym 2011 [28] Sensitivity Specificity 1/SE Inconclusive 2/2 - -  
Gao 2011 [29] lnDOR SE(lnDOR) 1/2 Begg 1/2  
Gargiulo 2011 [30] lnDOR 1/root(ESS) Not considered Deeks 1/2  
Glasgow 2012 [31] lnDOR 1/Var(lnDOR) 0/2 - -  
Gong 2011 [32] Sensitivity Sample size Inconclusive 2/2 - - Plots had too low power.
Hernaez 2011 [33] - - - Deeks 0/1  
Inaba 2012 [34] lnDOR RR1 SE(lnDOR) SE(RR) 1/2 Egger2 1/2 Level of significance p-value <0.10
Kobayashi 2012 [35] DOR SE(DOR) 2/2 Begg 0/2 Both plots indicated publication though the tests were not significant.
Li 2011 [36] - - - Egger 1/1 Publication bias was detected for a subgroup by the test.
Li 2012 [37] - - - Egger 1/1  
Lu 2011 [38] lnDOR 1/root(ESS) Not considered Deeks 0/1  
Lundstrom 2011 [39] - - - Egger 0/1  
Luo 2011 [40] lnDOR 1/root (ESS) Not considered Egger 0/3  
Manea 2012 [41] - - ? Begg ? Results were not presented
Mao 2012 [42] - - - Egger 1/1  
Marton 2012 [43] Not specified Not specified Not considered Egger 1 One plot and test to investigate two diagnostic tools
Mathews 2011 [44] AUC(ROC)3 SE(AUC(ROC)) 0/2 Egger 0/2  
McInnes 2011 [45] lnDOR SE(lnDOR) - Egger 0/1  
Meader 2011 [46] - - - Egger ? Results were not presented.
Mitchell 2011 [47] - - - Begg ? Results were not presented.
Onishi 2012 [48] - - - Egger 2/2  
Papathanasiou 2012 [49] lnDOR SE(lnDOR) Not considered Begg 1/1  
Plana 2012 [50] lnDOR 1/root(ESS) Not considered Deeks 0/2 Not identified by tests Plots was not used to draw conclusions.
Qu 2011 [51] logDOR Sample size ?/2 - - Results of funnel plots were inconclusive, too low power.
Sadeghi 2012 [52] logDetectionRate4 logSensitivity SE(logDetect Rate) SE(logSens) 0/2 Egger 0/2  
Sadigh 2011 [53] - - - Deeks 0/1  
Summah 2011 [54] lnDOR SE(lnDOR) 1/1 Egger 1/1  
Sun 2011 [55] - - - Deeks 0/1 No publication bias was detected by the test.
Takakuwa 2011 [56] lnDOR 1/root (ESS) 1/1 Deeks 0/1 Identified by plot though not by test.
Thosani 2012 [57] lnDOR SE(lnDOR) Not considered Egger 2/2 Plots were not used to draw conclusion.
Tomasson 2012 [58] Difference in arcsine5 Precision(Dif. in arcsine) 2/2 Egger 0/2 Identified by plots though not by tests.
Trallero-Araguas 2012 [59] - - - Deeks 0/1  
Wang 2011 [60] - - - Begg Egger 0/2 0/2  
Wang 2012 [61] lnDOR SE(lnDOR) 7/7 Egger 3/7  
Wang 2012 [62] lnDOR SE(lnDOR) 0/2 Begg Egger 0/2  
Wang 2012 [63] lnDOR SE(lnDOR) 0/2 - -  
Wu 2012 [64] lnDOR 1/root(ESS) 0/1 Deeks 0/1  
Xu 2011 [65] - - - Egger 0/1  
Xu 2011 [66] lnDOR Standardized effect6 SE(lnDOR) Precision(St. effect) 0/2 Begg-Mazumdar Harbord-Egger 0/2  
Ying 2011[67] lnDOR 1/root(ESS) 0/2 Deeks 0/2  
Yu 2012 [68] lnDOR SE(lnDOR) 1/1 - -  
Zhang 2011[69] lnDOR 1/root(ESS) 0/1 Deeks 0/1  
  1. 1RR = Relative Risk; It is unclear which estimates were used to calculate the RR.
  2. 2The methods section specifies that the Egger test has been used though the text of the figures specified the Begg test.
  3. 3AUC(ROC) = Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the Receiving Operating Characteristic (ROC).
  4. 4There was no definition for Detection Rate specified in the article.
  5. 5Difference in arcsine = Transformed ratios of arcsine for those with rise in Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody (ANCA) and persistent ANCA among subjects who had relapse and those who did not.
  6. 6Standardized effect was explained as differentiating benign and malignant lymph nodes.