Response to commentary: Spurious meta-analyses: both critical methodological assessment and statistical correction are needed
暂无分享，去创建一个
[1] John P A Ioannidis,et al. Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[2] J. Ioannidis,et al. Nested Randomized Trials in Large Cohorts and Biobanks: Studying the Health Effects of Lifestyle Factors , 2008, Epidemiology.
[3] J. Ioannidis,et al. Persistence of contradicted claims in the literature. , 2007, JAMA.
[4] Nikolaos A Patsopoulos,et al. Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[5] Iztok Hozo,et al. When Should Potentially False Research Findings Be Considered Acceptable? , 2007, PLoS medicine.
[6] M. Khoury,et al. Most Published Research Findings Are False—But a Little Replication Goes a Long Way , 2007, PLoS medicine.
[7] J. Ioannidis. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.
[8] David J Spiegelhalter,et al. Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex cost‐effectiveness modelling , 2003, Statistics in medicine.
[9] N. Black,et al. 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, Journal of epidemiology and community health.
[10] Barry N. Taylor,et al. Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of Nist Measurement Results , 2017 .