Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] I. Boutron,et al. Dissemination of 2014 dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) trial results: a systematic review of scholarly and media attention over 7 months , 2017, BMJ Open.
[2] Thomas Arrison,et al. FOSTERING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH , 2017 .
[3] S. Killeen,et al. Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Primary Outcomes Published in High-impact Surgical Journals , 2017, Annals of surgery.
[4] M. Edwards,et al. Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition , 2017, Environmental engineering science.
[5] John P. A. Ioannidis,et al. A manifesto for reproducible science , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.
[6] I. Boutron,et al. Peer reviewers identified spin in manuscripts of nonrandomized studies assessing therapeutic interventions, but their impact on spin in abstract conclusions was limited. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[7] B. Goldacre,et al. Outcomes in the trial registry should match those in the protocol , 2016, The Lancet.
[8] David Moher,et al. A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[9] K. Bhaskaran,et al. Impact of statin related media coverage on use of statins: interrupted time series analysis with UK primary care data , 2016, British Medical Journal.
[10] Elisabeth M. Bik,et al. The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications , 2016, mBio.
[11] Susann Fiedler,et al. Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency , 2016, PLoS biology.
[12] David Moher,et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening? , 2016, The Lancet.
[13] N. Lazar,et al. The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose , 2016 .
[14] J. Ioannidis,et al. Evolution of Reporting P Values in the Biomedical Literature, 1990-2015. , 2016, JAMA.
[15] L. Trinquart,et al. Why do we think we know what we know? A metaknowledge analysis of the salt controversy. , 2016, International journal of epidemiology.
[16] Willem M Otte,et al. Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis , 2015, British Medical Journal.
[17] Isabelle Boutron,et al. Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention , 2015, BMC Medical Research Methodology.
[18] R. Nuzzo. How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop , 2015, Nature.
[19] S. Wexner,et al. Spin Is Common in Studies Assessing Robotic Colorectal Surgery: An Assessment of Reporting and Interpretation of Study Results , 2015, Diseases of the colon and rectum.
[20] Stephen E. Fienberg,et al. Self-correction in science at work , 2015, Science.
[21] Jonathan Taylor,et al. Statistical learning and selective inference , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[22] R. Lanfear,et al. The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science , 2015, PLoS biology.
[23] M. Schuemie,et al. Use of Adjectives in Abstracts when Reporting Results of Randomized, Controlled Trials from Industry and Academia , 2015, Drugs in R&D.
[24] Bruce Alberts,et al. Opinion: Addressing systemic problems in the biomedical research enterprise , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[25] Jordan D Dworkin,et al. Data interpretation in analgesic clinical trials with statistically nonsignificant primary analyses: an ACTTION systematic review. , 2015, The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society.
[26] Braunwald,et al. Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.
[27] E. Wager,et al. Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Authors , 2014, Prilozi.
[28] I. Boutron,et al. Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers’ interpretation: a randomized controlled trial , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.
[29] Sally Hopewell,et al. 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, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[30] Adrien Treuille,et al. Scientific rigor through videogames. , 2014, Trends in biochemical sciences.
[31] John P. A. Ioannidis,et al. Assessing value in biomedical research: the PQRST of appraisal and reward. , 2014, JAMA.
[32] Douglas G. Altman,et al. Evidence for the Selective Reporting of Analyses and Discrepancies in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Cohort Studies of Clinical Trials , 2014, PLoS medicine.
[33] N. Jewell,et al. Should people at low risk of cardiovascular disease take a statin? , 2014, BDJ.
[34] Harold Varmus,et al. Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[35] A. Amos. A review of spin and bias use in the early intervention in psychosis literature. , 2014, The primary care companion for CNS disorders.
[36] Robert L Grant,et al. Converting an odds ratio to a range of plausible relative risks for better communication of research findings , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[37] Kevin W Boyack,et al. A list of highly influential biomedical researchers, 1996–2011 , 2013, European journal of clinical investigation.
[38] Mark A Burgman,et al. Policy: Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims , 2013, Nature.
[39] J. Dumville,et al. “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, Trials.
[40] D. Allison,et al. Belief beyond the evidence: using the proposed effect of breakfast on obesity to show 2 practices that distort scientific evidence. , 2013, The American journal of clinical nutrition.
[41] Aseem Malhotra,et al. Saturated fat is not the major issue , 2013, BMJ.
[42] B. Giraudeau,et al. Study Design and Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials of Chronic Idiopathic or Autoimmune Urticaria: Review , 2013, PloS one.
[43] Adrian V. Hernández,et al. Deficient Reporting and Interpretation of Non-Inferiority Randomized Clinical Trials in HIV Patients: A Systematic Review , 2013, PloS one.
[44] Johannes B Reitsma,et al. Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of "spin". , 2013, Radiology.
[45] I. Tannock,et al. Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer. , 2013, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
[46] R. Chou,et al. Screening for Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.
[47] F. Rivara,et al. Spin and boasting in research articles. , 2012, Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.
[48] Isabelle Boutron,et al. Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News Coverage: A Cohort Study , 2012, PLoS medicine.
[49] C. Booth,et al. Discordance between conclusions stated in the abstract and conclusions in the article: analysis of published randomized controlled trials of systemic therapy in lung cancer. , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
[50] Erik B. Erhardt,et al. Data Visualization in the Neurosciences: Overcoming the Curse of Dimensionality , 2012, Neuron.
[51] P. Ravaud,et al. Misleading abstract conclusions in randomized controlled trials in rheumatology: comparison of the abstract conclusions and the results section. , 2012, Joint, bone, spine : revue du rhumatisme.
[52] G. Loewenstein,et al. Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling , 2012, Psychological science.
[53] J. Ioannidis,et al. Risk factors and interventions with statistically significant tiny effects. , 2011, International journal of epidemiology.
[54] Daniele Fanelli,et al. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries , 2011, Scientometrics.
[55] R. Brand,et al. Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial. , 2010, Archives of internal medicine.
[56] Lisa M. Schwartz,et al. Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[57] I. Cuthill,et al. Reporting : The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research , 2010 .
[58] Douglas G Altman,et al. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. , 2010, JAMA.
[59] D. Moher,et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[60] David Moher,et al. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. , 2009, JAMA.
[61] D. Moher,et al. Randomized trials published in some Chinese journals: how many are randomized? , 2009, Trials.
[62] J. Ware,et al. Translating statistical findings into plain English , 2009, The Lancet.
[63] John P A Ioannidis,et al. Overinterpretation of clinical applicability in molecular diagnostic research. , 2009, Clinical chemistry.
[64] G. Guyatt,et al. How to use an article about genetic association: C: What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? , 2009, JAMA.
[65] Rachael Gooberman-Hill,et al. Complex interventions to improve physical function and maintain independent living in elderly people: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2008, The Lancet.
[66] Gabriele Siciliano,et al. Lithium delays progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[67] R. Rosenthal,et al. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.
[68] R. Fletcher,et al. "Spin" in scientific writing: scientific mischief and legal jeopardy. , 2007, Medicine and law.
[69] I. Boutron,et al. Methodological issues in trials assessing primary prophylaxis of venous thrombo-embolism. , 2006, European heart journal.
[70] Gordon H Guyatt,et al. Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. , 2005, JAMA.
[71] J. Ioannidis. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005 .
[72] J. Ioannidis. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.
[73] S. Evans,et al. The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials: a Delphi survey. , 2005, Contemporary clinical trials.
[74] K. Schulz,et al. Multiplicity in randomised trials II: subgroup and interim analyses , 2005, The Lancet.
[75] Helen Pearson. Image manipulation: CSI: cell biology , 2005, Nature.
[76] Gordon H Guyatt,et al. Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[77] M. Falagas,et al. Addressing the Limitations of Structured Abstracts , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.
[78] Kenneth M. Yamada,et al. What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation , 2004, The Journal of cell biology.
[79] A. Hrõbjartsson,et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. , 2004, JAMA.
[80] M. Pepe,et al. Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. , 2004, American journal of epidemiology.
[81] Christiane,et al. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2004, Journal international de bioethique = International journal of bioethics.
[82] Wolzt,et al. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2003, The Journal of the American College of Dentists.
[83] L.. HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known , 2002 .
[84] N. Desbiens. Lessons Learned from Attempts To Establish the Blind in Placebo-Controlled Trials of Zinc for the Common Cold , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.
[85] R. J. Hayes,et al. Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology , 1996, BMJ.
[86] T Greenhalgh,et al. Commentary: Scientific heads are not turned by rhetoric , 1995, BMJ.
[87] R. Horton. The rhetoric of research , 1995, BMJ.
[88] D. Phillips,et al. Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.
[89] B. Farr,et al. The problems of taste in placebo matching: an evaluation of zinc gluconate for the common cold. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.