Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Author's Reply to Goodman and Greenland

@article{Ioannidis2007WhyMP,
  title={Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Author's Reply to Goodman and Greenland},
  author={John P. A. Ioannidis},
  journal={PLoS Medicine},
  year={2007},
  volume={4},
  pages={883 - 501}
}
Muin J. Khoury, Julian Little, Julian Higgins, John P. A. Ioannidis, Marta Gwinn We applaud PLoS editors for their commitment to publishing high-quality systematic reviews (SRs) [1]. Moher et al. [2] clearly documented the inconsistent quality of reporting of SRs. With more than 2,500 SRs published every year, low-quality or outdated reviews may mislead researchers, providers, and policy makers. The situation could be improved if more evidence-based reporting guidelines were agreed upon… CONTINUE READING
Recent Discussions
This paper has been referenced on Twitter 15 times over the past 90 days. VIEW TWEETS

Citations

Publications citing this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 24 extracted citations

References

Publications referenced by this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 12 references

2006) The Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2006

  • US Congres
  • S. 3822, 109th Congress, 2d session. Available…
  • 2007
2 Excerpts

Empirical data on the refutation rates for various research designs agree with the estimates obtained in the proposed modeling

  • S Goodman, S Greenland
  • PLoS Med
  • 2007
1 Excerpt

Similar Papers

Loading similar papers…