Literature DB >> 24870934

Maximizing legacy and impact of primary research: a call for better reporting of results.

Neal R Haddaway1.   

Abstract

Much of the scientific literature in existence today is based on model systems and case studies, which help to split research into manageable blocks. The impact of this research can be greatly increased in meta-analyses that combine individual studies published over time to identify patterns across studies; patterns that may go undetected by smaller studies and that may not be the main subject of investigation. However, many potentially useful studies fail to provide sufficient data (typically means, true sample sizes, and measures of variability) to permit meta-analysis. Authors of primary research studies should provide these summary statistics as a minimum, and editors should require them to do so. By putting policies in place that require these summary statistics to be included, or even those that require raw data, editors and authors can maximize the legacy and impact of the research they publish beyond that of their initial target audience.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24870934      PMCID: PMC4132460          DOI: 10.1007/s13280-014-0535-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ambio        ISSN: 0044-7447            Impact factor:   5.129


  10 in total

1.  The new CONSORT statement.

Authors:  Gerd Antes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-03-23

2.  Author contacts for retrieval of data for a meta-analysis on exercise and diet restriction.

Authors:  Cheryl A Gibson; Bruce Wayne Bailey; Michael J Carper; James D Lecheminant; Erik Paul Kirk; Guoyuan Huang; Katrina Drowatzky Dubose; Joseph E Donnelly
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.188

3.  Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management.

Authors:  Andrew S Pullin; Gavin B Stewart
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 6.560

4.  An historical perspective on meta-analysis: dealing quantitatively with varying study results.

Authors:  Keith O'Rourke
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 5.  A systematic review identifies a lack of standardization in methods for handling missing variance data.

Authors:  Natasha Wiebe; Ben Vandermeer; Robert W Platt; Terry P Klassen; David Moher; Nicholas J Barrowman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  The availability of research data declines rapidly with article age.

Authors:  Timothy H Vines; Arianne Y K Albert; Rose L Andrew; Florence Débarre; Dan G Bock; Michelle T Franklin; Kimberly J Gilbert; Jean-Sébastien Moore; Sébastien Renaut; Diana J Rennison
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 10.834

Review 7.  Meta-analysis: weighing the evidence.

Authors:  D R Jones
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction.

Authors:  J Lau; E M Antman; J Jimenez-Silva; B Kupelnick; F Mosteller; T C Chalmers
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1992-07-23       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

Authors:  Kenneth F Schulz; Douglas G Altman; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-03-23

10.  Combining multiple imputation and meta-analysis with individual participant data.

Authors:  Stephen Burgess; Ian R White; Matthieu Resche-Rigon; Angela M Wood
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-05-24       Impact factor: 2.373

  10 in total
  1 in total

1.  Changes in AMBIO policies.

Authors:  Bo Söderström
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 5.129

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.