Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://olympias.lib.uoi.gr/jspui/handle/123456789/20239Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Siontis, K. C. | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Evangelou, E. | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Ioannidis, J. P. | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2015-11-24T19:05:46Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2015-11-24T19:05:46Z | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1464-3685 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://olympias.lib.uoi.gr/jspui/handle/123456789/20239 | - |
| dc.rights | Default Licence | - |
| dc.subject | Analysis of Variance | en |
| dc.subject | *Bibliometrics | en |
| dc.subject | *Clinical Trials as Topic | en |
| dc.subject | Humans | en |
| dc.subject | Meta-Analysis as Topic | en |
| dc.subject | *Periodicals as Topic | en |
| dc.subject | Publication Bias | en |
| dc.subject | Treatment Outcome | en |
| dc.title | Magnitude of effects in clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals | en |
| heal.type | journalArticle | - |
| heal.type.en | Journal article | en |
| heal.type.el | Άρθρο Περιοδικού | el |
| heal.identifier.primary | 10.1093/ije/dyr095 | - |
| heal.identifier.secondary | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22039194 | - |
| heal.identifier.secondary | http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/5/1280.full.pdf | - |
| heal.language | en | - |
| heal.access | campus | - |
| heal.recordProvider | Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων. Σχολή Επιστημών Υγείας. Τμήμα Ιατρικής | el |
| heal.publicationDate | 2011 | - |
| heal.abstract | BACKGROUND: Prestigious journals select for publication studies that are considered most important and informative. We aimed to examine whether high-impact general (HIG) medical journals systematically demonstrate more favourable results for experimental interventions compared with the rest of the literature. METHODS: We scrutinized systematic reviews of the Cochrane Database (Issue 4, 2009) and meta-analyses published in four general journals (2008-09). Eligible articles included >/=1 binary outcome meta-analysis(es) pertaining to effectiveness with >/=1 clinical trial(s) published in NEJM, JAMA or Lancet. Effect sizes in trials from NEJM, JAMA or Lancet were compared with those from other trials in the same meta-analyses by deriving summary relative odds ratios (sRORs). Additional analyses examined separately early- and late-published trials in HIG journals and journal-specific effects. RESULTS: A total of 79 meta-analyses including 1043 clinical trials were analysed. Trials in HIG journals had similar effects to trials in other journals, when there was large-scale evidence, but showed more favourable results for experimental interventions when they were small. When HIG trials had less than 40 events, the sROR was 1.64 [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.23-2.18). The difference was most prominent when small early trials published in HIG journals were compared with subsequent trials [sROR 2.68 (95% CI: 1.33-5.38)]. Late-published HIG trials showed no consistent inflation of effects. The patterns did not differ beyond chance between NEJM, JAMA or Lancet. CONCLUSIONS: Small trials published in the most prestigious journals show more favourable effects for experimental interventions, and this is most prominent for early-published trials in such journals. No effect inflation is seen for large trials. | en |
| heal.journalName | Int J Epidemiol | en |
| heal.journalType | peer-reviewed | - |
| heal.fullTextAvailability | TRUE | - |
| Appears in Collections: | Άρθρα σε επιστημονικά περιοδικά ( Ανοικτά) - ΙΑΤ | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Siontis-2011-Magnitude of effects.pdf | 508.96 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open Request a copy |
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
