172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21454050)
1. Statistically significant meta-analyses of clinical trials have modest credibility and inflated effects.
Pereira TV; Ioannidis JP
J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Oct; 64(10):1060-9. PubMed ID: 21454050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Meta-analysis of the Italian studies on short-term effects of air pollution].
Biggeri A; Bellini P; Terracini B;
Epidemiol Prev; 2001; 25(2 Suppl):1-71. PubMed ID: 11515188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Errors in the conduct of systematic reviews of pharmacological interventions for irritable bowel syndrome.
Ford AC; Guyatt GH; Talley NJ; Moayyedi P
Am J Gastroenterol; 2010 Feb; 105(2):280-8. PubMed ID: 19920807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Magnitude of effects in clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals.
Siontis KC; Evangelou E; Ioannidis JP
Int J Epidemiol; 2011 Oct; 40(5):1280-91. PubMed ID: 22039194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Synthesis of observational studies should consider credibility ceilings.
Salanti G; Ioannidis JP
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Feb; 62(2):115-22. PubMed ID: 19131013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of formal statistical significance on the credibility of observational associations.
Ioannidis JP
Am J Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 168(4):374-83; discussion 384-90. PubMed ID: 18611956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials.
Pildal J; Hróbjartsson A; Jørgensen KJ; Hilden J; Altman DG; Gøtzsche PC
Int J Epidemiol; 2007 Aug; 36(4):847-57. PubMed ID: 17517809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of excess statistical significance in meta-analyses of 98 biomarker associations with cancer risk.
Tsilidis KK; Papatheodorou SI; Evangelou E; Ioannidis JP
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2012 Dec; 104(24):1867-78. PubMed ID: 23090067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Can we rely on the best trial? A comparison of individual trials and systematic reviews.
Glasziou PP; Shepperd S; Brassey J
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2010 Mar; 10():23. PubMed ID: 20298582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings.
Ioannidis JP; Trikalinos TA
Clin Trials; 2007; 4(3):245-53. PubMed ID: 17715249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis.
Tierney JF; Stewart LA
Int J Epidemiol; 2005 Feb; 34(1):79-87. PubMed ID: 15561753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evidence from crossover trials: empirical evaluation and comparison against parallel arm trials.
Lathyris DN; Trikalinos TA; Ioannidis JP
Int J Epidemiol; 2007 Apr; 36(2):422-30. PubMed ID: 17301102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses.
Brok J; Thorlund K; Gluud C; Wetterslev J
J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 61(8):763-9. PubMed ID: 18411040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials.
LeLorier J; Grégoire G; Benhaddad A; Lapierre J; Derderian F
N Engl J Med; 1997 Aug; 337(8):536-42. PubMed ID: 9262498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Updating meta-analyses leads to larger type I errors than publication bias.
Borm GF; Donders AR
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Aug; 62(8):825-830.e10. PubMed ID: 19136233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research.
Sterne JA; Jüni P; Schulz KF; Altman DG; Bartlett C; Egger M
Stat Med; 2002 Jun; 21(11):1513-24. PubMed ID: 12111917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?
French SD; McDonald S; McKenzie JE; Green SE
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2005 Oct; 5():33. PubMed ID: 16225692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey.
Ioannidis JP; Trikalinos TA
CMAJ; 2007 Apr; 176(8):1091-6. PubMed ID: 17420491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Robustness assessments are needed to reduce bias in meta-analyses that include zero-event randomized trials.
Keus F; Wetterslev J; Gluud C; Gooszen HG; van Laarhoven CJ
Am J Gastroenterol; 2009 Mar; 104(3):546-51. PubMed ID: 19262513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Systematic reviewers neglect bias that results from trials stopped early for benefit.
Bassler D; Ferreira-Gonzalez I; Briel M; Cook DJ; Devereaux PJ; Heels-Ansdell D; Kirpalani H; Meade MO; Montori VM; Rozenberg A; Schünemann HJ; Guyatt GH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2007 Sep; 60(9):869-73. PubMed ID: 17689802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
