Primary study authors of significant studies are more likely to believe that a strong association exists in a heterogeneous meta-analysis compared with methodologists
- 31 July 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Elsevier BV in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Vol. 65 (7), 740-747
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.008
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 77 references indexed in Scilit:
- Circulating insulin‐like growth factor peptides and prostate cancer risk: A systematic review and meta‐analysisInternational Journal of Cancer, 2009
- Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plotsBMJ, 2008
- Going from evidence to recommendationsBMJ, 2008
- GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendationsBMJ, 2008
- Insulin-like growth factors and cancer: no role in screening. Evidence from the BUPA study and meta-analysis of prospective epidemiological studiesBritish Journal of Cancer, 2006
- Persistence of nevirapine-resistant HIV-1 in women after single-dose nevirapine therapy for prevention of maternal-to-fetal HIV-1 transmissionProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2006
- Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized TrialsJAMA, 2004
- Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF binding protein-3, and cancer risk: systematic review and meta-regression analysisThe Lancet, 2004
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysisStatistics in Medicine, 2002