Double incontinence among women globally: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 7 Comprehensive publication bias assessment

Assessment method	Test statistic	Value	95%CI	P value	Interpretation
Egger’s regression test	Intercept	0.357	-1.582 to 2.296	0.721	No asymmetry detected
	Standard error	0.982	-	-	-
Begg’s test	Kendall’s Tau	-0.022	-	1.000	No rank correlation
Fail-Safe N	Rosenthal N	2554	-	< 0.001	Highly robust (threshold = 60)
Trim-and-fill (L0)	Imputed studies	0	-	-	No missing studies
	Adjusted prevalence	8.66%	7.14-10.63	-	No change from observed
Trim-and-fill (R0)	Imputed studies	0	-	-	No missing studies
	Adjusted prevalence	8.66%	7.14-10.63	-	No change from observed
Forced imputation	Imputed studies	1 (forced)	-	-	Sensitivity analysis
	Adjusted prevalence	8.58%	7.08-10.42	-	Negligible change (-0.08%)

Convergence of multiple methods (Egger’s, Begg’s, Fail-Safe N, trim-and-fill) provides robust evidence against publication bias despite limited test power with n = 10 studies. CI: Confidence interval.