References

• 2019RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,975 cited
• 2015Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science8,516 cited
• 2008Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated1,489 cited
• 2005Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research1,465 cited
• 1997Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled Trials1,170 cited
• 1992Cumulative Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Trials for Myocardial Infarction1,138 cited
• 1998Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough655 cited
• 2017Association Between Risk-of-Bias Assessments and Results of Randomized Trials in Cochrane Reviews: The ROBES Meta-Epidemiologic Study381 cited
• 1996Large Trials vs Meta-analysis of Smaller Trials355 cited
• 2007Persistence of Contradicted Claims in the Literature227 cited
• 2010Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting173 cited
• 2014Accumulating Research: A Systematic Account of How Cumulative Meta-Analyses Would Have Provided Knowledge, Improved Health, Reduced Harm and Saved Resources123 cited
• 2010Evaluating novel agent effects in multiple‐treatments meta‐regression111 cited
• 2006The fading of reported effectiveness. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials