Who Has Used Internal Company Documents for Biomedical and Public Health Research and Where Did They Find Them?
出版年份 2014 全文链接
标题
Who Has Used Internal Company Documents for Biomedical and Public Health Research and Where Did They Find Them?
作者
关键词
-
出版物
PLoS One
Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages e94709
出版商
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
发表日期
2014-05-07
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0094709
参考文献
相关参考文献
注意:仅列出部分参考文献,下载原文获取全部文献信息。- The ADVANTAGE Seeding Trial: A Review of Internal Documents
- (2013) Kevin P. Hill et al. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
- A Historic Moment for Open Science: The Yale University Open Data Access Project and Medtronic
- (2013) Harlan M. Krumholz et al. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
- 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 manufacture of lifestyle: The role of corporations in unhealthy living
- (2012) Nicholas Freudenberg JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY
- Open Doorway to Truth: Legacy of the Minnesota Tobacco Trial
- (2012) Richard D. Hurt et al. MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS
- Implementation of a publication strategy in the context of reporting biases. A case study based on new documents from Neurontin® litigation
- (2012) S Swaroop Vedula et al. Trials
- The Imperative to Share Clinical Study Reports: Recommendations from the Tamiflu Experience
- (2012) Peter Doshi et al. PLOS MEDICINE
- Publication Bias in Antipsychotic Trials: An Analysis of Efficacy Comparing the Published Literature to the US Food and Drug Administration Database
- (2012) Erick H. Turner et al. PLOS MEDICINE
- Conflicted Medical Journals and the Failure of Trust
- (2011) Jon N. Jureidini et al. Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance
- Recognizing, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the WHO
- (2011) Kay Dickersin et al. JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE
- Tobacco documents research methodology
- (2011) S. J. Anderson et al. TOBACCO CONTROL
- Persistence of Cardiovascular Risk After Rofecoxib Discontinuation
- (2010) Joseph S. Ross ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
- The Haunting of Medical Journals: How Ghostwriting Sold “HRT”
- (2010) Adriane J. Fugh-Berman PLOS MEDICINE
- Moral Disengagement in the Corporate World
- (2009) Jenny White et al. Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance
- Outcome Reporting in Industry-Sponsored Trials of Gabapentin for Off-Label Use
- (2009) S. Swaroop Vedula et al. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
- The Neurontin Legacy — Marketing through Misinformation and Manipulation
- (2009) C. Seth Landefeld et al. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
- The promotion of olanzapine in primary care: An examination of internal industry documents
- (2009) Glen I. Spielmans SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
- Industry-Sponsored Ghostwriting in Clinical Trial Reporting: A Case Study
- (2008) Leemon B. McHenry et al. Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance
- The Role of Corporate Credibility in Legitimizing Disease Promotion
- (2008) Patricia A. McDaniel et al. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
- Guest Authorship and Ghostwriting in Publications Related to Rofecoxib
- (2008) Joseph S. Ross et al. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- Reporting Mortality Findings in Trials of Rofecoxib for Alzheimer Disease or Cognitive Impairment
- (2008) Bruce M. Psaty et al. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and Presentation
- (2008) Kristin Rising et al. PLOS MEDICINE
Create your own webinar
Interested in hosting your own webinar? Check the schedule and propose your idea to the Peeref Content Team.
Create NowBecome a Peeref-certified reviewer
The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.
Get Started