SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Investigating the trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials in osteopathic research: a systematic review with meta-analysis
16 references·0 citing·51 second hop
Investigating the trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials in osteopathic research: a systematic review with meta-analysis (2025)Investigating the trustworthiness of rand…The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: An…The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity (2020)The Hong Kong Principles for …False individual patient data and zombie randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia (2020)False individual patient data…Check for publication integrity before misconduct (2020)Check for publication integri…RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)RoB 2: a revised tool for ass…What is a predatory journal? A scoping review (2018)What is a predatory journal? …Reproducibility of Scientific Results (2018)Reproducibility of Scientific…PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement (2016)PRESS Peer Review of Electron…The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science (2015)The Extent and Consequences o…Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma? (2015)Offline: What is medicine's 5…Publish or perish: Where are we heading? (2014)Publish or perish: Where are …Reporting Quality of Social and Psychological Intervention Trials: A Systematic Review of Reporting Guidelines and Trial Publications (2013)Reporting Quality of Social a…Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: a systematic, retrospective study (2012)Publication misconduct and pl…Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane reviewa (2012)Does use of the CONSORT State…Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes (2010)Reporting and Interpretation …How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)How Many Scientists Fabricate…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)Does Cultural Competency Training of Health Professionals Improve Patient Outcomes? A Systematic Review and Proposed Algorithm for Future Research (2010)Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? (2010)Evolution of Reporting P Values in the Biomedical Literature, 1990-2015 (2016)The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (1974)The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)Practical Meta-Analysis (2000)Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data (2010)Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling (2012)Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications (2012)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement (2013)Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force (2013)A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: an Intervention Mapping approach (2015)The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. (1979)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)False-Positive Psychology (2011)Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data (2015)The contact hypothesis re-evaluated (2018)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension (2021)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2020)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics (2015)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)The preregistration revolution (2018)Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society (2021)Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands (2022)A typology of validity: content, face, convergent, discriminant, nomological and predictive validity (2024)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)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)Implementing the 27 PRISMA 2020 Statement items for systematic reviews in the sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports science fields: the PERSiST (implementing Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science) guidance (2021)The use of digital technology for social wellbeing reduces social isolation in older adults: A systematic review (2021)How to conduct systematic literature reviews in management research: a guide in 6 steps and 14 decisions (2023)Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure (2018)Reproducible and replicable pain research: a critical review (2018)The significant cost of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A call for greater involvement of machine learning to assess the promise of clinical trials (2019)Detecting and avoiding likely false‐positive findings – a practical guide (2016)What is science’s crisis really about? (2017)What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved? (2017)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2019RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,067 cited
  • 2016PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement5,681 cited
  • 2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews4,227 cited
  • 2009How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data1,909 cited
  • 2015The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science1,389 cited
  • 2010Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes828 cited
  • 2012Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane reviewa628 cited
  • 2020The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity545 cited
  • 2014Publish or perish: Where are we heading?386 cited
  • 2015Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?215 cited
  • 2018Reproducibility of Scientific Results199 cited
  • 2020False individual patient data and zombie randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia172 cited
  • 2018What is a predatory journal? A scoping review156 cited
  • 2020Check for publication integrity before misconduct113 cited

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

  • 2013Reporting Quality of Social and Psychological Intervention Trials: A Systematic Review of Reporting Guidelines and Trial Publications111 cited
  • 2012Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: a systematic, retrospective study103 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.