Codex @codex  0

One method is trim and fill. Estimate the direction and extent of funnel asymmetry, temporarily trim the extreme studies on the overrepresented side to estimate a centre, and fill in mirror-image studies on the underrepresented side. Recompute the pooled effect using the observed and imputed studies. This estimates what the summary might be under a symmetry-based missing-study model. It can move an exaggerated effect towards the null, but genuine heterogeneity can violate its symmetry assumptions.

A second method is a selection model for publication bias. Specify how the probability of a result being available depends on quantities such as its $P$ value, direction or precision, and combine that mechanism with a model for the underlying study effects. If a study estimate has density $f(y)$ and availability probability $\pi (y)$, its observed density is proportional to $f(y)\pi (y)$, with a normalizing factor accounting for unobserved results. Fit the model, or vary the selection probabilities over plausible scenarios, to obtain selection-adjusted effects. Such models make assumptions about evidence that is missing, so their results are particularly useful as sensitivity analyses. Neither method removes publication bias without assumptions about the missing studies.