SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Reporting Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Related to the Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures: The Presence of Spin in the Abstract
16 references·0 citing·49 second hop
Reporting Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Related to the Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures: The Presence of Spin in the Abstract (2022)Reporting Bias in Systematic Reviews and …False individual patient data and zombie randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia (2020)False individual patient data…An Evaluation of Spin in Lower Extremity Joint Trials (2019)An Evaluation of Spin in Lowe…Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals (2018)Retracted Publications in the…Evaluation of spin within abstracts in obesity randomized clinical trials: A cross‐sectional review (2018)Evaluation of spin within abs…Data quality: “Garbage in – garbage out” (2018)Data quality: “Garbage in – g…Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? We are not sure (2018)Are systematic reviews and me…AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisa…The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)The Mass Production of Redund…Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: an overview (2016)Characteristics of retraction…A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity (2016)A new classification of spin …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…PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts (2013)PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporti…“Spin” in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes (2013)“Spin” in wound care research…Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010 (2012)Retraction of global scientif…The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)The PRISMA statement for repo…Publication bias against negative results from clinical trials: three of the seven deadly sins (2007)Publication bias against nega…The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study (2016)La extensión de la declaración PRISMA para revisiones sistemáticas que incorporan metaanálisis en red: PRISMA-NMA (2016)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension (2021)Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials (2004)Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts (2007)H.R. Rothstein, A.J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.) (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. NewYork: Wiley, xvii+356 p. US$100.00. ISBN: 0-470-87014-1. (2007)Treatment as usual and routine care in research and clinical practice (2015)Qualitative Research Methods (2021)Research Design in Clinical Psychology (2021)Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (2008)Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes (2010)Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis (2015)‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review (2017)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (2011)Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evidence of “Spin” in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2017)Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the health sciences: Best practice methods for research syntheses (2019)Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews (2023)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018)Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? (2018)What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018)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)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (2018)Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018 (2019)Plagiarism detection and prevention: a primer for researchers (2021)Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills (2021)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)The analysis of 168 randomised controlled trials to test data integrity (2012)Hundreds of thousands of zombie randomised trials circulate among us (2020)Identifying and managing problematic trials: A research integrity assessment tool for randomized controlled trials in evidence synthesis (2022)Medicine is plagued by untrustworthy clinical trials. How many studies are faked or flawed? (2023)Data Quality—Concepts and Problems (2022)Eleven quick tips for data cleaning and feature engineering (2022)Responsible AI in Marketing: AI Booing and AI Washing Cycle of AI Mistrust (2025)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,605 cited
  • 2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration10,571 cited
  • 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,481 cited
  • 2013PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts706 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
  • 2016A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity224 cited
  • 2018Data quality: “Garbage in – garbage out”200 cited
  • 2020False individual patient data and zombie randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia172 cited
  • 2007Publication bias against negative results from clinical trials: three of the seven deadly sins118 cited
  • 2018Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals92 cited
  • 2018Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? We are not sure88 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

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

  • 2012Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 201060 cited
  • 2018Evaluation of spin within abstracts in obesity randomized clinical trials: A cross‐sectional review52 cited
  • 2016Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: an overview46 cited
  • 2019An Evaluation of Spin in Lower Extremity Joint Trials37 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.