Literature DB >> 11927210

Citation bias of hepato-biliary randomized clinical trials.

Lise L Kjaergard1, Christian Gluud.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess whether trials with a positive (i.e., statistically significant) outcome are cited more often than negative trials. We reviewed 530 randomized clinical trials on hepato-biliary diseases published in 11 English-language journals indexed in MEDLINE from 1985-1996. From each trial, we extracted the statistical significance of the primary study outcome (positive or negative), the disease area, and methodological quality (randomization and double blinding). The number of citations during two calendar years after publication was obtained from Science Citation Index. There was a significant positive association between a statistically significant study outcome and the citation frequency (beta, 0.55, 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.72). The disease area and adequate generation of the allocation sequence were also significant predictors of the citation frequency. We concluded that positive trials are cited significantly more often than negative trials. The association was not explained by disease area or methodological quality.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11927210     DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00513-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  17 in total

1.  Bias.

Authors:  Miguel Delgado-Rodríguez; Javier Llorca
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Recognizing, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the WHO.

Authors:  Kay Dickersin; Iain Chalmers
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions.

Authors:  Nicholas H Steneck
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: cross sectional study.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-07-19

Review 5.  Bibliometric analysis of the literature of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Ming-yueh Tsay; Yen-hsu Yang
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2005-10

6.  Iron, zinc and copper in the Alzheimer's disease brain: a quantitative meta-analysis. Some insight on the influence of citation bias on scientific opinion.

Authors:  Matthew Schrag; Claudius Mueller; Udochukwu Oyoyo; Mark A Smith; Wolff M Kirsch
Journal:  Prog Neurobiol       Date:  2011-05-11       Impact factor: 11.685

7.  Knee Society Award Papers Are Highly Cited Works.

Authors:  Tommy P Mroz; Henry D Clarke; Yu-Hui H Chang; Giles R Scuderi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 8.  Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review.

Authors:  Natalie McGauran; Beate Wieseler; Julia Kreis; Yvonne-Beatrice Schüler; Heike Kölsch; Thomas Kaiser
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-04-13       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Brief alcohol intervention trials conducted by higher prestige authors and published in higher impact factor journals are cited more frequently.

Authors:  Emily E Tanner-Smith; Joshua R Polanin
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2016-02-06       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US States Data.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-04-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.