Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Date (published): 2005-08-30
en (lookup ISO-639 code)
This journal-article is a release (version) of the work
aaaaaaaaaaaaavkvaaaaaaaaam. There may be other releases (eg, pre-prints,
formal publications, etc) linked to the same work.
Publisher: Public Library of Science
Release Status: published
Release Type: journal-article
No known abstracts.
|1||John P. A. Ioannidis||author|
Known Files and URLs
|SHA-1||Size (bytes)||File Type||Links|
ReferencesThis release citing other releases.
- Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Lau J. Any casualties in the clash of randomised and observational evidence? BMJ. 2001;322:879–880
- Lawlor DA, Davey Smith G, Kundu D, Bruckdorfer KR, Ebrahim S. Those confounded vitamins: What can we learn from the differences between observational versus randomised trial evidence? Lancet. 2004;363:1724–1727.
- Vandenbroucke JP. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet. 2004;363:1728–1731.
- Michiels S, Koscielny S, Hill C. Prediction of cancer outcome with microarrays: A multiple random validation strategy. Lancet. 2005;365:488–492.
- Ioannidis JPA, Ntzani EE, Trikalinos TA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet. 2001;29:306–309.
- Colhoun HM, McKeigue PM, Davey Smith G. Problems of reporting genetic associations with complex outcomes. Lancet. 2003;361:865–872.
Open Access Publication
State is "active". Revision:
As JSON object via API