SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
What is the probability that higher versus lower quality of evidence represents true effects estimates?
16 references·0 citing·49 second hop
What is the probability that higher versus lower quality of evidence represents true effects estimates? (2024)What is the probability that higher versu…High certainty evidence is stable and trustworthy, whereas evidence of moderate or lower certainty may be equally prone to being unstable (2024)High certainty evidence is st…Rationality: What it is, why it seems scarce, why it matters (2022)Rationality: What it is, why …Identification of threshold for large (dramatic) effects that would obviate randomized trials is not possible (2022)Identification of threshold f…High quality (certainty) evidence changes less often than low‐quality evidence, but the magnitude of effect size does not systematically differ between studies with low versus high‐quality evidence (2022)High quality (certainty) evid…A Rush to Judgment? Rapid Reporting and Dissemination of Results and Its Consequences Regarding the Use of Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 (2020)A Rush to Judgment? Rapid Rep…Ten questions to consider when interpreting results of a meta‐epidemiological study—the MetaBLIND study as a case (2019)Ten questions to consider whe…GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions (2019)GRADE guidelines 26: informat…Analysis on Accuracy of Bias, Linearity and Stability of Measurement System in Ball screw Processes by Simulation (2015)Analysis on Accuracy of Bias,…Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs (2014)Clinical development success …Expediting Drug Development — The FDA's New “Breakthrough Therapy” Designation (2013)Expediting Drug Development —…Heuristics (2011)HeuristicsProbability theory, not the very guide of life. (2009)Probability theory, not the v…Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Why Most Published Research F…Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. (2002)Systems to rate the strength …Proper analysis of the accuracy of group judgments. (1997)Proper analysis of the accura…Rational choice in an uncertain world (1990)Rational choice in an uncerta…Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)A Process for Systematically Reviewing the Literature: Providing the Research Evidence for Public Health Nursing Interventions (2004)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta‐analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review (2015)Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery (1996)The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs (2003)Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? (2004)Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs (2016)A Comprehensive Map of FDA-Approved Pharmaceutical Products (2018)Estimated Research and Development Investment Needed to Bring a New Medicine to Market, 2009-2018 (2020)On the psychology of prediction. (1973)Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1975)Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. (1979)ADAPTABILITY TO CHANGING TASK CONTEXTS: EFFECTS OF GENERAL COGNITIVE ABILITY, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND OPENNESS TO EXPERIENCE (2000)Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Process (2002)Team-Specific Capital and Innovation (2018)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)False-Positive Psychology (2011)Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience (2013)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)Bayesian inference: Combining base rates with opinions of sources who vary in credibility. (1983)Decision making under uncertainty (1984)Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis (2003)Flawed Self-Assessment (2004)Stubborn Reliance on Intuition and Subjectivity in Employee Selection (2008)Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions (2011)GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision (2011)Scientific method: Statistical errors (2014)GRADE approach to drawing conclusions from a network meta-analysis using a minimally contextualised framework (2020)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2020)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021)A BEHAVIORAL MODEL OF RATIONAL CHOICE (1955)Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. (1972)Heuristic Decision Making (2010)Facilitating the ideas-informed society: a systematic review (2022)Theory-Based Decisions: Foundations and Introduction (2024)Thinking disposition education improves cognitive reflection: Experimental results from an intervention study (2024)National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2014 (2014)New FDA Breakthrough-Drug Category — Implications for Patients (2014)Early market access of cancer drugs in the EU (2015)Against pandemic research exceptionalism (2020)COVID-19 research: pandemic versus “paperdemic”, integrity, values and risks of the “speed science” (2020)Coevolution of policy and science during the pandemic (2021)Decision-Making Under Risk (2014)Homo Ignorans (2016)Citizens Versus the Internet: Confronting Digital Challenges With Cognitive Tools (2020)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False10,571 cited
  • 2014Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs2,616 cited
  • 2019GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions1,233 cited
  • 2002Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence.880 cited
  • 2011Heuristics467 cited
  • 1990Rational choice in an uncertain world232 cited
  • 1997Proper analysis of the accuracy of group judgments.215 cited
  • 2020A Rush to Judgment? Rapid Reporting and Dissemination of Results and Its Consequences Regarding the Use of Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19205 cited
  • 2022Rationality: What it is, why it seems scarce, why it matters153 cited
  • 2013Expediting Drug Development — The FDA's New “Breakthrough Therapy” Designation139 cited
  • 2009Probability theory, not the very guide of life.102 cited
  • 2019Ten questions to consider when interpreting results of a meta‐epidemiological study—the MetaBLIND study as a case45 cited
  • 2022High quality (certainty) evidence changes less often than low‐quality evidence, but the magnitude of effect size does not systematically differ between studies with low versus high‐quality evidence20 cited
  • 2015Analysis on Accuracy of Bias, Linearity and Stability of Measurement System in Ball screw Processes by Simulation

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

17 cited
  • 2022Identification of threshold for large (dramatic) effects that would obviate randomized trials is not possible11 cited
  • 2024High certainty evidence is stable and trustworthy, whereas evidence of moderate or lower certainty may be equally prone to being unstable9 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.