SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Selection in Reported Epidemiological Risks: An Empirical Assessment
16 references·16 citing·37 second hopsampled
Selection in Reported Epidemiological Risks: An Empirical Assessment (2007)Selection in Reported Epidemiological Ris…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2019)Why Most Published Research F…The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporti…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research F…Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research (2005)Contradicted and Initially St…Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2004)Outcome reporting bias in ran…Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials (2004)Empirical Evidence for Select…Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. (2003)Towards complete and accurate…The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)The Revised CONSORT Statement…Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Improving the quality of repo…Effect of the Statistical Significance of Results on the Time to Completion and Publication of Randomized Efficacy Trials (1998)Effect of the Statistical Sig…Do Certain Countries Produce Only Positive Results? A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials (1998)Do Certain Countries Produce …Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects (1997)Publication bias: evidence of…Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German (1997)Language bias in randomised c…Publication Bias: The Problem That Won't Go Away (1993)Publication Bias: The Problem…Factors Influencing Publication of Research Results (1992)Factors Influencing Publicati…Publication bias in clinical research (1991)Publication bias in clinical …Retrospective median power, false positive meta‐analysis and large‐scale replication (2021)Retrospective median power, f…Use of publication procedures to improve research integrity by addiction journals (2019)Use of publication procedures…The strong focus on positive results in abstracts may cause bias in systematic reviews: a case study on abstract reporting bias (2019)The strong focus on positive …Reproducibility: A Primer on Semantics and Implications for Research (2017)Reproducibility: A Primer on …Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: expressing and interpreting associations and effect sizes in clinical outcome assessments (2016)Best (but oft-forgotten) prac…Field-wide meta-analyses of observational associations can map selective availability of risk factors and the impact of model specifications (2015)Field-wide meta-analyses of o…Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence When Assessing Health Care Interventions for the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: An Update (2013)Grading the Strength of a Bod…Discussion: Why "An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature" is false (2013)Discussion: Why "An estimate …Primary study authors of significant studies are more likely to believe that a strong association exists in a heterogeneous meta-analysis compared with methodologists (2012)Primary study authors of sign…Knowledge Integration in Cancer: Current Landscape and Future Prospects (2012)Knowledge Integration in Canc…Prognostic effect size of cardiovascular biomarkers in datasets from observational studies versus randomised trials: meta-epidemiology study (2011)Prognostic effect size of car…Synthesis of observational studies should consider credibility ceilings (2009)Synthesis of observational st…Some main problems eroding the credibility and relevance of randomized trials. (2008)Some main problems eroding th…Evaluation of the Potential Excess of Statistically Significant Findings in Published Genetic Association Studies: Application to Alzheimer's Disease (2008)Evaluation of the Potential E…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Author's Reply to Goodman and Greenland (2007)Why Most Published Research F…Reporting of Systematic Reviews: The Challenge of Genetic Association Studies (2007)Reporting of Systematic Revie…Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Publication Bias: A Problem in Interpreting Medical Data (1988)The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence (1990)The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement (1996)A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. (2006)Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results (2009)Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs (2000)Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis (2007)Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated (2008)Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling (2012)Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (1996)Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement (1996)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (2005)REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) (2006)Screening for Depression in Medical Settings with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ): A Diagnostic Meta-Analysis (2007)The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. (1979)A Nonparametric "Trim and Fill" Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis (2000)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials (2001)Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry (2008)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)False-Positive Psychology (2011)Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience (2013)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups (2007)Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Sex Differences in Insomnia: A Meta-Analysis (2006)Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases (2010)Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases (2011)
this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

  • 2007The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies22,917 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
  • 2001The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration3,828 cited
  • 1991Publication bias in clinical research3,110 cited
  • 2004Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials1,845 cited
  • 2005Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research1,465 cited
  • 1997Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German1,029 cited
  • 2003Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy.862 cited
  • 1992Factors Influencing Publication of Research Results853 cited
  • 1997Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects820 cited
  • 1998Do Certain Countries Produce Only Positive Results? A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials684 cited
  • 1998Effect of the Statistical Significance of Results on the Time to Completion and Publication of Randomized Efficacy Trials631 cited

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

2019
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
463 cited
  • 2004Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research442 cited
  • 1993Publication Bias: The Problem That Won't Go Away427 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2013Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence When Assessing Health Care Interventions for the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: An Update115 cited
    • 2007Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Author's Reply to Goodman and Greenland110 cited
    • 2009Synthesis of observational studies should consider credibility ceilings107 cited
    • 2011Prognostic effect size of cardiovascular biomarkers in datasets from observational studies versus randomised trials: meta-epidemiology study80 cited
    • 2013Discussion: Why "An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature" is false60 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
    • 2008Evaluation of the Potential Excess of Statistically Significant Findings in Published Genetic Association Studies: Application to Alzheimer's Disease48 cited
    • 2016Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: expressing and interpreting associations and effect sizes in clinical outcome assessments42 cited
    • 2019The strong focus on positive results in abstracts may cause bias in systematic reviews: a case study on abstract reporting bias40 cited
    • 2015Field-wide meta-analyses of observational associations can map selective availability of risk factors and the impact of model specifications35 cited
    • 2008Some main problems eroding the credibility and relevance of randomized trials.30 cited
    • 2021Retrospective median power, false positive meta‐analysis and large‐scale replication27 cited
    • 2019Use of publication procedures to improve research integrity by addiction journals22 cited
    • 2012Knowledge Integration in Cancer: Current Landscape and Future Prospects18 cited
    • 2017Reproducibility: A Primer on Semantics and Implications for Research12 cited
    • 2007Reporting of Systematic Reviews: The Challenge of Genetic Association Studies12 cited