Evidence of Experimental Bias in the Life Sciences: Why We Need Blind Data Recording
Published 2015 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
Evidence of Experimental Bias in the Life Sciences: Why We Need Blind Data Recording
Authors
Keywords
Meta-analysis, Evolutionary biology, Statistical data, Text mining, Medicine and health sciences, Clinical trials, Birds, Peer review
Journal
PLOS BIOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages e1002190
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Online
2015-07-09
DOI
10.1371/journal.pbio.1002190
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science
- (2015) Megan L. Head et al. PLOS BIOLOGY
- Observer bias in animal behaviour research: can we believe what we score, if we score what we believe?
- (2014) F.A.M. Tuyttens et al. ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
- Rising complexity and falling explanatory power in ecology
- (2014) Etienne Low-Décarie et al. FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
- Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors
- (2014) Asbjørn Hróbjartsson et al. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Lack of blinding of outcome assessors in animal model experiments implies risk of observer bias
- (2014) Segun Bello et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies; Missing Link in Translational Research?
- (2014) Judith van Luijk et al. PLoS One
- The Need for Randomization in Animal Trials: An Overview of Systematic Reviews
- (2014) Jennifer A. Hirst et al. PLoS One
- Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials
- (2013) Jelena Savović et al. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
- Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors
- (2013) A. Hrobjartsson et al. CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL
- Weak evidence for anticipatory parental effects in plants and animals
- (2013) T. Uller et al. JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
- Confirmation Bias in Studies of Nestmate Recognition: A Cautionary Note for Research into the Behaviour of Animals
- (2013) Ellen van Wilgenburg et al. PLoS One
- Perspectives - Minimizing Observer Bias in Behavioral Studies: A Review and Recommendations
- (2012) Gordon M. Burghardt et al. ETHOLOGY
- META-ANALYSIS SUGGESTS CHOOSY FEMALES GET SEXY SONS MORE THAN “GOOD GENES”
- (2012) Zofia M. Prokop et al. EVOLUTION
- Estimating genetic benefits of polyandry from experimental studies: a meta-analysis
- (2011) Rachel A. Slatyer et al. BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS
- Survey of the Quality of Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis and Reporting of Research Using Animals
- (2009) Carol Kilkenny et al. PLoS One
- Evidence for the Efficacy of NXY-059 in Experimental Focal Cerebral Ischaemia Is Confounded by Study Quality
- (2008) Malcolm R. Macleod et al. STROKE
- Empirical Evidence of Bias in the Design of Experimental Stroke Studies
- (2008) Nicolas A. Crossley et al. STROKE
- Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study
- (2008) Lesley Wood et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations
- (2007) Andrew Gelman STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
Discover Peeref hubs
Discuss science. Find collaborators. Network.
Join a conversationPublish scientific posters with Peeref
Peeref publishes scientific posters from all research disciplines. Our Diamond Open Access policy means free access to content and no publication fees for authors.
Learn More