SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Indication of Measures of Uncertainty for Statistical Significance in Abstracts of Published Oncology Trials
16 references·0 citing·48 second hop
Indication of Measures of Uncertainty for Statistical Significance in Abstracts of Published Oncology Trials (2019)Indication of Measures of Uncertainty for…Scientists rise up against statistical significance (2019)Scientists rise up against st…Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Clinical Trials (2019)Reporting and Interpretation …Redefine statistical significance (2017)Redefine statistical signific…The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science (2015)The Extent and Consequences o…Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Preferred reporting items for…HemOnc.org: A Collaborative Online Knowledge Platform for Oncology Professionals (2015)HemOnc.org: A Collaborative O…Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention (2015)Classification and prevalence…Impact of Spin in the Abstracts of Articles Reporting Results of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Cancer: The SPIIN Randomized Controlled Trial (2014)Impact of Spin in the Abstrac…Prevalence of Off-Label Use and Spending in 2010 Among Patent-Protected Chemotherapies in a Population-Based Cohort of Medical Oncologists (2013)Prevalence of Off-Label Use a…Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer (2013)Bias in reporting of end poin…The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology (2010)The Corsini encyclopedia of p…Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes (2010)Reporting and Interpretation …The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: Survey of major general medical journals (2008)The quality of reporting of t…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research F…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research F…Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. (1971)Measuring nominal scale agree…MOMENTS OF THE STATISTICS KAPPA AND WEIGHTED KAPPA (1968)Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. (1968)Large sample standard errors of kappa and weighted kappa. (1969)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations (2007)The spread of true and false news online (2018)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials (2004)Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias (2008)Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research (2014)STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2015)STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies (2015)Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (2008)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review (2017)Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature (2018)CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials (2025)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience (2013)The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. (1979)False-Positive Psychology (2011)Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data (2015)The Contact Hypothesis Revisited (2017)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension (2021)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)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 review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Two new Later Stone Age sites from the Final Pleistocene in the Falémé Valley, eastern Senegal (2024)Beyond Power Calculations (2014)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics (2016)Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015 (2018)The preregistration revolution (2018)How Many Participants Do We Have to Include in Properly Powered Experiments? A Tutorial of Power Analysis with Reference Tables (2019)The Statistical Crisis in Science (2014)How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches (2019)Inferential Statistics as Descriptive Statistics: There Is No Replication Crisis if We Don’t Expect Replication (2019)Sample size evolution in neuroimaging research: An evaluation of highly-cited studies (1990–2012) and of latest practices (2017–2018) in high-impact journals (2020)Rewriting results sections in the language of evidence (2021)The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate (2016)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)Impact of Online Information on Self-Isolation Intention During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study (2020)Specificity of trait anxiety in anxiety and depression: Meta-analysis of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (2020)What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2015Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation13,139 cited
  • 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False10,571 cited
  • 1971Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters.8,801 cited
  • 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False4,755 cited
  • 2019Scientists rise up against statistical significance2,997 cited
  • 2017Redefine statistical significance2,771 cited
  • 2015The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science1,393 cited
  • 2010The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology1,082 cited
  • 2010Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes833 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
  • 2015Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention147 cited
  • 2008The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: Survey of major general medical journals133 cited
  • 2013Prevalence of Off-Label Use and Spending in 2010 Among Patent-Protected Chemotherapies in a Population-Based Cohort of Medical Oncologists127 cited
  • 2013Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer

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

118 cited
  • 2019Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Clinical Trials67 cited
  • 2015HemOnc.org: A Collaborative Online Knowledge Platform for Oncology Professionals40 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.