Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Statistically significant meta-analyses of clinical trials have modest credibility and inflated effects

16 references·16 citing·45 second hopsampled

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

1986Meta-analysis in clinical trials39,515 cited
2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False10,471 cited
1999Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement4,828 cited
2008Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study2,534 cited
1997Quantitative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews2,515 cited
2001Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses2,285 cited
2007Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis1,879 cited
2008Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated1,489 cited
2005Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research1,465 cited
1987Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials1,253 cited
1997Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled Trials1,170 cited
2008Sensitivity of between-study heterogeneity in meta-analysis: proposed metrics and empirical evaluation1,146 cited
2007Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews891 cited
2008Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses?

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

834 cited

1998Effect of the Statistical Significance of Results on the Time to Completion and Publication of Randomized Efficacy Trials631 cited

2010Stopping Randomized Trials Early for Benefit and Estimation of Treatment Effects Systematic Review and Meta-regression Analysis613 cited

Cited by

2020Exploratory Research397 cited
2015Statistical and Methodological Considerations for the Interpretation of Intranasal Oxytocin Studies333 cited
2013Clarifications on the application and interpretation of the test for excess significance and its extensions150 cited
2014Accumulating Research: A Systematic Account of How Cumulative Meta-Analyses Would Have Provided Knowledge, Improved Health, Reduced Harm and Saved Resources119 cited
2015Systematic Reviews of Anesthesiologic Interventions Reported as Statistically Significant102 cited
2014A Call for Examining Replication and Bias in Special Education Research98 cited
2013Comparative effect sizes in randomised trials from less developed and more developed countries: meta-epidemiological assessment88 cited
2020Estimating publication bias in meta‐analyses of peer‐reviewed studies: A meta‐meta‐analysis across disciplines and journal tiers85 cited
2016Poor agreement in significant findings between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized trials in perioperative medicine58 cited
2016Can systematic reviews with sparse data be trusted?56 cited
2018Statistical power of clinical trials increased while effect size remained stable: an empirical analysis of 136,212 clinical trials between 1975 and 201454 cited
2018Raising Awareness for the Replication Crisis in Clinical Psychology by Focusing on Inconsistencies in Psychotherapy Research: How Much Can We Rely on Published Findings from Efficacy Trials?52 cited
2012Primary study authors of significant studies are more likely to believe that a strong association exists in a heterogeneous meta-analysis compared with methodologists49 cited
2015When may systematic reviews and meta-analyses be considered reliable?44 cited
2012Perceived information gain from randomized trials correlates with publication in high–impact factor journals41 cited
2017Are Meta-Analyses a Form of Medical Fake News?38 cited