Discussion: Why "An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature" is false

Biostatistics

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 28-36

  Ioannidis, John P A ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; False discovery rate; P value; Science; Selection bias

Indexed keywords

BIAS; FALSE DISCOVERY RATE; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; P-VALUE; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; SCIENCE; SELECTION BIAS; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

BIAS; FALSE DISCOVERY RATE; P-VALUE; SCIENCE; SELECTION BIAS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; PUBLICATIONS;

EID: 84890494910     PISSN: 14654644     EISSN: 14684357     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxt036     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. BEGLEY, C. G. AND ELLIS, L. M. (2012). Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531-533.
2. BOUTRON, I., DUTTON, S., RAVAUD, P. AND ALTMAN, D. G. (2010). Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Association 303, 2058-2064.
3. CHAN, A. W. AND ALTMAN, D. G. (2005). Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet 365, 1159-1162. (Pubitemid 40417566)
4. CHAN, A. W., HROBJARTSSON, A., JORGENSEN, K. J., GOTZSCHE, P. C. AND ALTMAN, D. G. (2008). Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. British Medical Journal 337, a2299.
5. FANELLI, D. (2010a). Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PLoS One 5, e10271.
6. FANELLI, D. (2010b). "Positive" results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS One 5, e10068.
7. FANELLI, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90, 891-904.
8. GOTZSCHE, P. C. (2006). Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: cross sectional study. British Medical Journal 333, 231-234. (Pubitemid 44406715)
9. HEDGES, L. V. AND VEVEA, J. L. (1996). Estimating effect size under publication bias: small sample properties and robustness of a random effects selection model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 21, 299-332.
10. HEDGES, L. V. AND VEVEA, J. L. (2005). Selection method approaches. In: Hannah R. Rothstein, Alexander J. Sutton, Michael Borenstein (editors), Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. New York: Wiley.
11. IOANNIDIS, J. P. (2005a). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2, e124.
12. IOANNIDIS, J. P. (2005b). Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association 294, 218-228. (Pubitemid 41043792)
13. IOANNIDIS, J. P. (2008). Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 19, 640-648.
14. IOANNIDIS, J. P., LOY, E. Y., POULTON, R. AND CHIA, K. S. (2009). Researching genetic versus nongenetic determinants of disease: a comparison and proposed unification. Science Translational Medicine 1, 7ps8.
15. IOANNIDIS, J. P., TARONE, R. AND MCLAUGHLIN, J. K. (2011). The false-positive to false-negative ratio in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology 22, 450-456.
16. IOANNIDIS, J. P. AND TRIKALINOS, T. A. (2007). An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings. Clinical Trials 4, 245-253. (Pubitemid 47400532)
17. KAVVOURA, F. K., LIBEROPOULOS, G. AND IOANNIDIS, J. P. (2007). Selection in reported epidemiological risks: an empirical assessment. PLoS Medicine 4, e79.
18. KAVVOURA, F. K., MCQUEEN, M. B., KHOURY, M. J., TANZI, R. E., BERTRAM, L. AND IOANNIDIS, J. P. (2008). Evaluation of the potential excess of statistically significant findings in published genetic association studies: application to Alzheimer's disease. American Journal of Epidemiology 168, 855-865.
19. PEREIRA, T. V., HORWITZ R. I. AND IOANNIDIS, J. P. (2011). Empirical evaluation of very large treatment effects of medical interventions. Journal of the American Medical Association 308, 1676-1684.
20. PFEIFFER, T., BERTRAM, L. AND IOANNIDIS, J. P. (2011). Quantifying selective reporting and the Proteus phenomenon for multiple datasets with similar bias. PLoS One 6, e18362.
21. PRINZ, F., SCHLANGE, T. AND ASADULLAH, K. (2011). Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 10, 712.
22. SIONTIS, K. C., EVANGELOU, E. AND IOANNIDIS, J. P. (2011). Magnitude of effects in clinical trials published in highimpact general medical journals. International Journal of Epidemiology 40, 1280-1291.
23. SMITH, G. D., LAWLOR, D. A., HARBORD, R., TIMPSON, N., DAY, I. AND EBRAHIM, S. (2007). Clustered environments and randomized genes: a fundamental distinction between conventional and genetic epidemiology. PLoS Medicine 4, e352.
24. VEVEA, J. L. AND HEDGES, L. V. (1995). A general linear model for estimating effect size in the presence of publication bias. Psychometrika 60, 419-435.
25. YOUNG, S. S. AND KARR, A. (2011). Deming, data, and observational studies: a process out of control and needing fixing. Significance 8, 116-120.