Asymmetry in funnel plots may indicate publication bias in meta-analysis, b
ut the shape of the plot in the absence of bias depends on the choice of ax
es. We evaluated standard error, precision (inverse of standard error), var
iance, inverse of variance, sample size and log sample size (vertical axis)
and log odds ratio. log risk ratio and risk difference (horizontal axis).
Standard error is likely to be the best choice for the vertical axis: the e
xpected shape in the absence of bias corresponds to a symmetrical funnel, s
traight lines to indicate 95% confidence intervals can be included and the
plot emphasises smaller studies which are more prone to bias. Precision or
inverse of variance is useful when comparing meta-analyses of small trials
with subsequent large trials. The use of sample size or log sample size is
problematic because the expected shape of the plot in the absence of bias i
s unpredictable. We found similar evidence for asymmetry and between trial
variation in a sample of 78 published meta-analyses whether odds ratios or
risk ratios were used on the horizontal axis. Different conclusions were re
ached for risk differences and this was related to increased between-trial
variation. We conclude that funnel plots of meta-analyses should generally
use standard error as the measure of study size and ratio measures of treat
ment effect. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.