Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Author's Reply to Goodman and Greenland

Abstract

This is an important paper and editorial [1,2].Systematic reviews should be much more widespread, and not only for randomized clinical trials of clinical treatments.A paper on an elegant piece of experimental data or on epidemiological observations would be made all the more interesting if the fi rst table were a high-quality assessment of previous studies.In fact, I would suggest that performing a systematic review should be part of a research protocol for any subject, even before the study is initiated.However, this paper confi rms my suspicion that the rising popularity of "systematic reviews" has not been followed by adherence to methodological rigor.With this background, I would like to point out one weakness that may explain part of the current quality defi cit in some systematic reviews.There is a substantial lack of software that can assist in an important part of a systematic review: tracking literature searches and early phase screening.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 110 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.