Finding the power to reduce publication bias release jqrhvtba5rbthjyikmg42m4dye

Extra Metadata (raw JSON)

Known Files and URLs

There are no known files associated with this release (you could try other releases for this work?).

References

1. Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance or vice versa Journal of the American Statistical Association.195930
2. The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results Psychological Bulletin.1979638 (DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638)
3. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis.1985.
4. Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A.1988419 (DOI: 10.2307/2982993)
5. Discussion of the paper by Begg and Berlin Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A.1988450
6. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test British Medical Journal.1997629 (DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629)
7. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects British Medical Journal.1997640 (DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.640)
8. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials Journal of the American Medical Association.1998281 (DOI: 10.1001/jama.279.4.281)
9. What works? Selectivity models and meta-analysis Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A.199995 (DOI: 10.1111/1467-985x.00123)
10. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias PloS One.2008 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003081)
11. Hopewell S Loudon K Clarke MJ Oxman AD Dickersin K Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial result Cochrane Review 2009 http://www.thecochranelibrary.com .
12. Meta-regression methods for detecting and estimating empirical effect in the presence of publication selection Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics.2008103
13. Introduction to Meta-Analysis.2009. (DOI: 10.1002/9780470743386)
14. Could it be better to discard 90% of the data? A statistical paradox The American Statistician.201070 (DOI: 10.1198/tast.2009.08205)
15. Treatment-effect estimates adjusted for small-study effects via a limit meta-analysis Biostatistics.2011122 (DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxq046)
16. Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias Research Synthesis Methods.201460 (DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1095)
17. Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards Journal of the American Medical Association.1992374 (DOI: 10.1001/jama.1992.03480030052036)
18. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles Journal of the American Medical Association.20042457 (DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457)
19. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy New England Journal of Medicine.2008252 (DOI: 10.1056/nejmsa065779)
20. Assessment of vibration of effects due to model specification can demonstrate the instability of observational associations Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.20151046 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.029)
21. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.2008.
22. Estimating effect size under publication bias: small sample properties and robustness of a random effects selection model Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.1996299 (DOI: 10.3102/10769986021004299)
23. A nonparametric "trim and fill" method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis Journal of the American Statistical Association.200089
24. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey Canadian Medical Association Journal.20071091 (DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.060410)
25. Meta-Regression Analysis in Economics and Business.2012.
26. Cohort study of trials submitted to ethics committee identified discrepant reporting of outcomes in publications Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.20131367 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.020)
27. Stead LF Perera R Bullen C Mant D Lancaster T Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation The Cochrane Library 2008 2 http://www.thecochranelibrary.com (DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd000146.pub3)
28. Neither fixed nor random: weighted least squares meta-analysis Statistics in Medicine.20152116 (DOI: 10.1002/sim.6481)
29. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.1988.
30. A power primer Psychological Bulletin.1992155 (DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155)
31. Meta-analysis inside and outside of particle physics: two traditions that should converge? Research Synthesis Methods.2013109 (DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1065)
32. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods Statistics in Medicine.19992693 (DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19991030)18:20<2693::aid-sim235>3.0.co;2-v)
33. Neither fixed nor random: weighted least squares meta-regression analysis Research Synthesis Methods.2016 (DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1211)
34. On least squares and linear combinations of observations Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.193542 (DOI: 10.1017/s0370164600014346)
35. Econometric Analysis.1990.
36. Econometric Theory and Methods.2004.
37. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative American Journal of Epidemiology.1999469 (DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010035)
38. Ioannidis JPA Stanley TD Doucouliagos , CH The power of bias in economics research The Economic Journal. SWP, http://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/477763/2016_1.pdf
39. The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews PloS One.2013 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059202)
40. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited research Journal of the American Medical Association.2005218 (DOI: 10.1001/jama.294.2.218)
41. Why most published research findings are false PLoS Medicine.2005e124 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)
42. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials British Medical Journal.2011d4002 (DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d4002)
43. Evidence of nicotine replacement's effectiveness dissolves when meta-regression accommodates multiple sources of bias Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.201641 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.024)
44. Is nicotine replacement really ineffective? A reply to Stanley and Massey Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.2016 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.013)
45. Yes, nicotine replacement therapy's effectiveness is much lower than often reported Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.2016 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.09.005)
46. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews PLoS Medicine.2007e78 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078)
47. Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate Statistics in Medicine.20032693 (DOI: 10.1002/sim.1482)
48. A simple confidence interval for meta-analysis Statistics in Medicine.20023153 (DOI: 10.1002/sim.1262)
49. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method BMC Medical Research Methodology.2014
50. Are estimates of the value of a statistical life exaggerated? Journal of Health Economics.2012197 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.10.001)
51. The value of a statistical life: a meta-analysis with a mixed effects regression model Journal of Health Economics.2009444 (DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.10.013)
52. Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: a meta-analysis of empirical studies BMC Medical Research Methodology.200979 (DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-79)
53. Obtaining evidence by a single well-powered trial or several modestly powered trials Statistical Methods in Medical Research.2016538 (DOI: 10.1177/0962280212461098)
54. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience Nature Reviews. Neuroscience.2013365 (DOI: 10.1038/nrn3475)