Assessing publication bias in genetic association studies: evidence from a recent meta-analysis.
Publication bias may exist when nonsignificant findings remain unpublished, thereby artificially inflating the apparent magnitude of an effect. This concern is not new, but it is particularly current in relation to genetic association studies. Data from a recent meta-analysis of association studies of personality were used to assess the potential of different graphical and statistical methods for assessing evidence of publication bias. The results suggest that no single method is sufficient for assessing evidence of publication bias, and that such methods may also offer insight into potential sources of heterogeneity, which may in turn guide the design of future studies.
Munafò
Marcus R
MR
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Cancer Research UK, General Practice Research Group, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK. marcus.munafo@clinpharm.ox.ac.uk
Clark
Taane G
TG
Flint
Jonathan
J
D006801:Humans; D008562:Membrane Glycoproteins / Q000235:genetics; D026901:Membrane Transport Proteins / Q000235:genetics; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D018598:Minisatellite Repeats / Q000235:genetics; D009419:Nerve Tissue Proteins / Q000235:genetics; D010554:Personality Disorders / Q000235:genetics*; D011110:Polymorphism, Genetic / Q000235:genetics; D017594:Publication Bias; D017448:Receptors, Dopamine D2 / Q000235:genetics; D050638:Receptors, Dopamine D4; D050486:Serotonin Plasma Membrane Transport Proteins
C493599:DRD4 protein, human; D008562:Membrane Glycoproteins; D026901:Membrane Transport Proteins; D009419:Nerve Tissue Proteins; D017448:Receptors, Dopamine D2; C493230:SLC6A4 protein, human; D050486:Serotonin Plasma Membrane Transport Proteins; D050638:Receptors, Dopamine D4