Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research
Published 2017 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
Systematic review finds that study data not published in full text articles have unclear impact on meta-analyses results in medical research
Authors
Keywords
Meta-analysis, Statistical data, Systematic reviews, Research assessment, Database searching, Drug research and development, Medicine and health sciences, Scientific publishing
Journal
PLoS One
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages e0176210
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Online
2017-04-26
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0176210
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- Sharing of Data From Industry-Funded Registered Clinical Trials
- (2016) Isabelle Boutron et al. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- Methods for detecting, quantifying, and adjusting for dissemination bias in meta-analysis are described
- (2016) Katharina Felicitas Mueller et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Reporting of Adverse Events in Published and Unpublished Studies of Health Care Interventions: A Systematic Review
- (2016) Su Golder et al. PLOS MEDICINE
- Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review
- (2015) Roberta W. Scherer et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- 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) J. J. Meerpohl et al. BMJ Open
- Clinical trial registration, reporting, publication and FDAAA compliance: a cross-sectional analysis and ranking of new drugs approved by the FDA in 2012
- (2015) Jennifer E Miller et al. BMJ Open
- Does Publication Bias Inflate the Apparent Efficacy of Psychological Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of US National Institutes of Health-Funded Trials
- (2015) Ellen Driessen et al. PLoS One
- Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research
- (2014) An-Wen Chan et al. LANCET
- Dissemination Bias in Systematic Reviews of Animal Research: A Systematic Review
- (2014) Katharina F. Mueller et al. PLoS One
- Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries
- (2014) Christine Schmucker et al. PLoS One
- The Tamiflu trials
- (2014) E. Loder et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Dabigatran: how the drug company withheld important analyses
- (2014) D. Cohen BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Benefits and harms in clinical trials of duloxetine for treatment of major depressive disorder: comparison of clinical study reports, trial registries, and publications
- (2014) E. Maund et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Potential Reporting Bias in fMRI Studies of the Brain
- (2013) Sean P. David et al. PLoS One
- Unpublished data can be of value in systematic reviews of adverse effects: methodological overview
- (2010) Su Golder et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting
- (2010) Mike Clarke et al. LANCET
- Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy
- (2008) Erick H. Turner et al. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
- GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
- (2008) Gordon H Guyatt et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
Discover Peeref hubs
Discuss science. Find collaborators. Network.
Join a conversationBecome a Peeref-certified reviewer
The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.
Get Started