How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors
Published 2016 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors
Authors
Keywords
-
Journal
BMJ Open
Volume 6, Issue 3, Pages e010442
Publisher
BMJ
Online
2016-03-03
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010442
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation
- (2015) L. Shamseer et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation
- (2015) L. Shamseer et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Why should clinical trials be registered?
- (2014) Elizabeth Wager et al. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY
- Fate of Articles That Warranted Retraction Due to Ethical Concerns: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study
- (2014) Nadia Elia et al. PLoS One
- Ability of a meta-analysis to prevent redundant research: systematic review of studies on pain from propofol injection
- (2014) C. Habre et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Financial Conflicts of Interest and Reporting Bias Regarding the Association between Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews
- (2014) Maira Bes-Rastrollo et al. PLOS MEDICINE
- The codex of science: honesty, precision, and truth--and its violations
- (2013) T. F. Luscher EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
- Meta-analysis of secure randomised controlled trials of β-blockade to prevent perioperative death in non-cardiac surgery
- (2013) Sonia Bouri et al. HEART
- Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings
- (2013) P. Doshi et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Differences in Reporting of Analyses in Internal Company Documents Versus Published Trial Reports: Comparisons in Industry-Sponsored Trials in Off-Label Uses of Gabapentin
- (2013) S. Swaroop Vedula et al. PLOS MEDICINE
- The Boldt debacle
- (2011) Martin R Tramèr EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY
- Ethics in systematic reviews
- (2010) J.-N. Vergnes et al. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS
- Susceptibility to Fraud in Systematic Reviews
- (2009) Emmanuel Marret et al. ANESTHESIOLOGY
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
- (2009) David Moher et al. PLOS MEDICINE
- Systematic reviewers commonly contact study authors but do so with limited rigor
- (2008) Rebecca J. Mullan et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy
- (2008) Erick H. Turner et al. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
- Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and Presentation
- (2008) Kristin Rising et al. PLOS MEDICINE
Publish 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 MoreBecome a Peeref-certified reviewer
The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.
Get Started