SZodixStudyAcademic Library
DashboardShelvesOpen accessMy libraryInboxNotesWriteLearnAlerts
More
Ask your libraryNotificationsQuick citeReview
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Identifying spin bias of nonsignificant findings in biomedical studies
13 references·0 citing·52 second hop
Identifying spin bias of nonsignificant findings in biomedical studies (2023)Identifying spin bias of nonsignificant f…Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement (2022)Reporting guideline for overv…Quality Output Checklist and Content Assessment (QuOCCA): a new tool for assessing research quality and reproducibility (2022)Quality Output Checklist and …Reporting quality and spin in abstracts of randomized clinical trials of periodontal therapy and cardiovascular disease outcomes (2020)Reporting quality and spin in…Language restrictions in systematic reviews should not be imposed in the search strategy but in the eligibility criteria if necessary (2020)Language restrictions in syst…Spin in Scientific Publications: A Frequent Detrimental Research Practice (2019)Spin in Scientific Publicatio…Data extraction methods: an analysis of internal reporting discrepancies in single manuscripts and practical advice (2019)Data extraction methods: an a…Abstracts of Low Back Pain Trials Are Poorly Reported, Contain Spin of Information, and Are Inconsistent With the Full Text: An Overview Study (2019)Abstracts of Low Back Pain Tr…Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature (2018)Misrepresentation and distort…Outcome reporting bias in randomized-controlled trials investigating antipsychotic drugs (2017)Outcome reporting bias in ran…A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research (2017)A scoping review of compariso…‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review (2017)‘Spin’ in published biomedica…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 …Evidence-informed recommendations to reduce dissemination bias in clinical research: conclusions from the OPEN (Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) project based on an international consensus meeting (2015)Evidence-informed recommendat…Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (2011)Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey (2016)Methods for detecting, quantifying, and adjusting for dissemination bias in meta-analysis are described (2016)Further exploration of dissemination bias in qualitative research required to facilitate assessment within qualitative evidence syntheses (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)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)Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials (2004)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 Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Assessing the Quality of Abstracts in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals (2019)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 reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers (2018)Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models (2023)CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials (2025)Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews (2015)Spinning the Genome: Why Science Hype Matters (2018)Reporting of methodological studies in health research: a protocol for the development of the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist (MISTIC) (2020)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Academic Misconduct, Misrepresentation and Gaming: A Reassessment (2018)What Value Do Journal Whitelists and Blacklists Have in Academia? (2018)The statistical significance of meta-analyses is frequently fragile: definition of a fragility index for meta-analyses (2019)Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes (2010)Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news (2019)Over‐promotion and caution in abstracts of preprints during the COVID ‐19 crisis (2021)Reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation issues (SPIN) in abstracts of orthodontic meta-analyses published from 2000 to 2020 (2021)Enhancing the trustworthiness of pain research: A call to action. (2024)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis (2014)Extent and prevalence of spin in randomized controlled trials in dentistry (2020)Abstracts for reports of randomized trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin (2021)A review of high impact journals found that misinterpretation of non-statistically significant results from randomized trials was common (2022)Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German (1997)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2020)Including non‐English language articles in systematic reviews: A reflection on processes for identifying low‐cost sources of translation support (2021)No limitations to language, date, publication type, and publication status in search step of systematic reviews (2021)Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study (2022)A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies (2009)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Introduction to Umbrella Reviews as a Useful Evidence-Based Practice (2023)The Role of Social Determinants of Health in Cardiovascular Diseases: An Umbrella Review (2023)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2022Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement849 cited
  • 2017‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review314 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
  • 2020Language restrictions in systematic reviews should not be imposed in the search strategy but in the eligibility criteria if necessary120 cited
  • 2017A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research75 cited
  • 2015Evidence-informed recommendations to reduce dissemination bias in clinical research: conclusions from the OPEN (Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) project based on an international consensus meeting57 cited
  • 2017Outcome reporting bias in randomized-controlled trials investigating antipsychotic drugs51 cited
  • 2020Reporting quality and spin in abstracts of randomized clinical trials of periodontal therapy and cardiovascular disease outcomes38 cited
  • 2019Spin in Scientific Publications: A Frequent Detrimental Research Practice35 cited
  • 2019Abstracts of Low Back Pain Trials Are Poorly Reported, Contain Spin of Information, and Are Inconsistent With the Full Text: An Overview Study30 cited
  • 2022Quality Output Checklist and Content Assessment (QuOCCA): a new tool for assessing research quality and reproducibility18 cited

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

  • 2019Data extraction methods: an analysis of internal reporting discrepancies in single manuscripts and practical advice16 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.