Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

A systematic review finds that spin or interpretation bias is abundant in evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers

15 references·3 citing·48 second hopsampled

FromToDepth

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

References

2015STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies3,623 cited
2017A manifesto for reproducible science3,368 cited
2005REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK)1,391 cited
2010Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes828 cited
2014Impact of Spin in the Abstracts of Articles Reporting Results of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Cancer: The SPIIN Randomized Controlled Trial366 cited
2017‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review314 cited
2011Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial291 cited
2018Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature273 cited
2016A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity224 cited
2012Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals200 cited
2013Overinterpretation and Misreporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: Evidence of “Spin”158 cited
2015Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention137 cited
2017Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evidence of “Spin” in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

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

72 cited

2013“Spin” in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes66 cited

2016Peer reviewers identified spin in manuscripts of nonrandomized studies assessing therapeutic interventions, but their impact on spin in abstract conclusions was limited58 cited

Cited by

2020A randomized trial of an editorial intervention to reduce spin in the abstract’s conclusion of manuscripts showed no significant effect27 cited
2024SPIN-PM: a consensus framework to evaluate the presence of spin in studies on prediction models13 cited
2022Influence of the statistical significance of results and spin on readers’ interpretation of the results in an abstract for a hypothetical clinical trial: a randomised trial11 cited