Meta-analysis · heterogeneity

Funnel plot example: BCG trials, heterogeneity not bias

Contour-enhanced funnel plot of the 13 BCG vaccine trials: Egger’s and Begg’s tests are not significant, and the wide spread reflects heterogeneity between trials.

Open this example in the editorStart from scratch

0.10.20.51250.00.20.40.60.8Standard errorRisk ratio (log scale)StudiesImputed studies (trim and fill)Summary estimateAdjusted estimate (trim and fill)P value:≥ 0.100.05–0.100.01–0.05< 0.01Egger’s test: bias = -2.11, t = -1.40, df = 11, P = 0.189Begg’s test: Kendall’s tau = 0.026, P = 0.952Trim and fill: 1 study imputed on the right; adjusted RR 0.52 [0.37, 0.73]
Log risk ratios of 13 BCG vaccine trials with significance contours and trim and fill.

About this example

Not every scattered funnel means publication bias. The 13 BCG vaccine trials (Colditz et al., JAMA 1994) spread far beyond the pseudo confidence limits on both sides, because the true effect differs between trials (I² above 90%), partly with latitude.

Egger’s test (P ≈ 0.19) and Begg’s test (P ≈ 0.95) find no asymmetry, and trim and fill imputes a single study. When heterogeneity is this large, funnel plot tests are hard to interpret, which is why Sterne et al. (BMJ 2011) advise exploring heterogeneity first.

The data

StudyEvents TTotal TEvents CTotal C
Aronson 1948412311139
Ferguson & Simes 1949630629303
Rosenthal et al 1960323111220
Hart & Sutherland 1977621359824812867
Frimodt-Moller et al 1973335069475808
Stein & Aronson 195318015413721451
Vandiviere et al 19738254510629
TPT Madras 19805058839149988391
Coetzee & Berjak 1968297499457277
Rosenthal et al 1961171716651665
Comstock et al 19741865063414127338
Comstock & Webster 19695249832341
Comstock et al 197627169132917854

Open the example, replace the data with your own, and export the figure as SVG, PDF, PNG or TIFF.

More examples