wrong side, I just dont know how to interpret the result.

regtest () reveals a negative z, which is not significant.

ranktest () reveals a negative tau, which is not significant.

> From help(forest.rma):

>

> pch -- plotting symbol to use for the observed effect sizes or outcomes.

> By default, a solid circle is used. Can also be a vector of values. See

> points for other options.

>

> pch.fill -- plotting symbol to use for the effect sizes or outcomes filled

> in by the trim and fill method. By default, a circle is used. Only relevant

> when plotting an object created by the trimfill function.

>

> The defaults are pch=19 and pch.fill=21. So, by default, a solid circle is

> used for the observed outcomes and an open circle is used for the outcomes

> that are filled in.

>

> An example is shown here:

>

>

>

http://www.metafor-project.org/doku.php/plots:funnel_plot_with_trim_and_fill>

> From help(trimfill.rma.uni):

>

> side -- either "left" or "right", indicating on which side of the funnel

> plot the missing studies should be imputed. If left undefined, the side is

> chosen within the function depending on the results of Egger's regression

> test (see regtest for details on this test).

>

> The argument is left undefined by default, so the side is chosen based on

> the results of the regression test (essentially, whether the slope is

> positive or negative). If you think the suppression occurred on the other

> side than the one that is chosen, specify the side via this argument.

>

> Best,

> Wolfgang

> ________________________________________

> From:

[hidden email] [

[hidden email]] On

> Behalf Of Verena Weinbir [

[hidden email]]

> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 1:15 PM

> To: Michael Dewey

> Cc: r-help

> Subject: Re: [R] Metafor: Strange Trim and Fill Outcome?

>

> thanks for your reply, Michael!

>

> ad primary studies:

> yup, I have a large set of studies: At the moment I consider 126 data sets

> in my analysis.

>

> ad interpretation:

> thats an interesting information. But usually there should be found an

> effect.

>

> ad "bit" :-):

> I am irritiated, because in the plots I have studied so far, I always found

> that the observed studies are open circles and the additional "mirrored"

> effects are black dots. In my case, it is the other way round.

>

> Also, most of the mirrored circels appear in the right upper corner,

> indicating, that there are studies missing in my data set, which have

> smaller SDs (i.e. are more precise?) and higher effect sizes?

>

> best,

>

> Verena

>

> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Michael Dewey <

[hidden email]
> >wrote:

>

> > At 09:34 26/05/2014, Verena Weinbir wrote:

> >

> >> Hey guys,

> >>

> >> I have tested the metafor trim and fill function (y:SD, x:SMD)on my data

> >> set and yielded the following result:

> >>

> >> 1. missing studies on the right: 34

> >>

> > That seems a lot of missing studies unless you have a very large set of

> > primary studies.

> >

> > 2. open circles on the rights side appear to be the number of additional

> >> effects

> >>

> >> 3. adjusted d would be higher than observed d.

> >>

> > Implying that the mechanism is suppressing studies which found a large

> > effect. This might happen if the dominant view is that there is no effect

> > and so when people find one they worry about their results.

> >

> > Since normally, as I understand, those parameters are the other way

> round

> >> (black dots indicating missing studies on the left, which would reduce

> the

> >> effect size), I wonder:

> >>

> >> Is there a mistake I have done? Or, if this is an actual outcome how

> can I

> >> interpret this? That its not a publication bias that influences my data

> >> set, but a lack of precision (studies missing that are precise -small

> SD-

> >> and have big SMD)?

> >>

> > Sorry but that bit is not very clear to me.

> >

> > Many thanks in advance!

> >>

> >> Verena

>