Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

BMJ 2011; 343 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4002 (Published 22 July 2011)
Cite this as: BMJ 2011;343:d4002

Recent rapid responses

Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included as edited readers' letters in the weekly print issue of the BMJ, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window.

Displaying 1-1 out of 1 published

In educational articles aimed at very specialised statistical issues, the choice of a clear example is a crucial point to help readers understand the main message conveyed by the paper.

In the article by Sterne et al. [1], understanding Figure 2 is essential, but it is unclear why three subgroups of studies (subgroups 1, 2 and 3) are proposed to interpret the results of the meta-analysis taken as an example, whereas one could think that two subgroups are enough (subgroups 1 and 2 pooled together vs. subgroup 3).

References

1. Sterne JAC, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011; 343:d4002

Competing interests: None declared

Andrea Messori, coordinator

Lab. of Pharmacoeconomics, c/o Area Vasta Centro Toscana, 50100 Firenze, ITALY

Click to like:

THIS WEEK'S POLL