Terrin Norma, Schmid Christopher H, Lau Joseph, Olkin Ingram
Division of Clinical Care Research, New England Medical Center, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
Stat Med. 2003 Jul 15;22(13):2113-26. doi: 10.1002/sim.1461.
It is known that the existence of publication bias can influence the conclusions of a meta-analysis. Some methods have been developed to deal with publication bias, but issues remain. One particular method called 'trim and fill' is designed to adjust for publication bias. The method, which is intuitively appealing and comprehensible by non-statisticians, is based on a simple and popular graphical tool called the funnel plot. We present a simulation study designed to evaluate the behaviour of this method. Our results indicate that when the studies are heterogeneous (that is, when they estimate different effects), trim and fill may inappropriately adjust for publication bias where none exists. We found that trim and fill may spuriously adjust for non-existent bias if (i) the variability among studies causes some precisely estimated studies to have effects far from the global mean or (ii) an inverse relationship between treatment efficacy and sample size is introduced by the studies' a priori power calculations. The results suggest that the funnel plot itself is inappropriate for heterogeneous meta-analyses. Selection modelling is an alternative method warranting further study. It performed better than trim and fill in our simulations, although its frequency of convergence varied, depending on the simulation parameters.
众所周知,发表偏倚的存在会影响荟萃分析的结论。已经开发了一些方法来处理发表偏倚,但问题仍然存在。一种特别的方法称为“修剪与填充”,旨在调整发表偏倚。该方法直观且非统计学家也能理解,它基于一种简单且常用的图形工具——漏斗图。我们进行了一项模拟研究,旨在评估该方法的性能。我们的结果表明,当研究存在异质性时(即当它们估计的效应不同时),“修剪与填充”可能会在不存在发表偏倚的情况下不适当地调整发表偏倚。我们发现,如果(i)研究之间的变异性导致一些精确估计的研究效应远离总体均值,或者(ii)研究的先验功效计算引入了治疗效果与样本量之间的反比关系,那么“修剪与填充”可能会错误地调整不存在的偏倚。结果表明,漏斗图本身不适用于异质性荟萃分析。选择建模是一种值得进一步研究的替代方法。在我们的模拟中,它的表现优于“修剪与填充”,尽管其收敛频率因模拟参数而异。