Why most published research findings are false

Getting to Good: Research Integrity in the Biomedical Sciences

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 2-8

  Ioannidis, John P A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOANNINA   (Greece)

^b TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85063364309     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124     Document Type: Chapter

References (37)

1. Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Lau J (2001) Any casualties in the clash of randomised and observational evidence? BMJ 322: 879-880
2. Lawlor DA, Davey Smith G, Kundu D, Bruckdorfer KR, Ebrahim S (2004) Those confounded vitamins: What can we learn from the differences between observational versus randomised trial evidence? Lancet 363: 1724-1727
3. Vandenbroucke JP (2004) When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet 363: 1728-1731
4. Michiels S, Koscielny S, Hill C (2005) Prediction of cancer outcome with microarrays: A multiple random validation strategy. Lancet 365: 488-492
5. Ioannidis JPA, Ntzani EE, Trikalinos TA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG (2001) Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet 29: 306-309
6. Colhoun HM, McKeigue PM, Davey Smith G (2003) Problems of reporting genetic associations with complex outcomes. Lancet 361: 865-872
7. Ioannidis JP (2003) Genetic associations: False or true? Trends Mol Med 9: 135-138
8. Ioannidis JPA (2005) Microarrays and molecular research: Noise discovery? Lancet 365: 454-455
9. Sterne JA, Davey Smith G (2001) Sifting the evidence-What's wrong with significance tests. BMJ 322: 226-231
10. Wacholder S, Chanock S, Garcia-Closas M, Elghormli L, Rothman N (2004) Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: An approach for molecular epidemiology studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 96: 434-442
11. Risch NJ (2000) Searching for genetic determinants in the new millennium. Nature 405: 847-856
12. Kelsey JL, Whittemore AS, Evans AS, Thompson WD (1996) Methods in observational epidemiology, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford U Press. 432 p
13. Topol EJ (2004) Failing the public health-Rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA. N Engl J Med 351: 1707-1709
14. Yusuf S, Collins R, Peto R (1984) Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials? Stat Med 3: 409-422
15. Altman DG, Royston P (2000) What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med 19: 453-473
16. Taubes G (1995) Epidemiology faces its limits. Science 269: 164-169
17. Golub TR, Slonim DK, Tamayo P, Huard C, Gaasenbeek M, et al. (1999) Molecular classification of cancer: Class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science 286: 531-537
18. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357: 1191-1194
19. Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gotzsche PC, O'Neill RT, Altman DG, et al. (2004) Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 141: 781-788
20. International Conference on Harmonisation E9 Expert Working Group (1999) ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials. Stat Med 18: 1905-1942
21. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, et al. (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 354: 1896-1900
22. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, et al. (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283: 2008-2012
23. Marshall M, Lockwood A, Bradley C, Adams C, Joy C, et al. (2000) Unpublished rating scales: A major source of bias in randomised controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 176: 249-252
24. Altman DG, Goodman SN (1994) Transfer of technology from statistical journals to the biomedical literature. Past trends and future predictions. JAMA 272: 129-132
25. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291: 2457-2465
26. Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS, Stott P, Kyle G (1998) Scientific journals and their authors' financial interests: A pilot study. Psychother Psychosom 67: 194-201
27. Papanikolaou GN, Baltogianni MS, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Haidich AB, Giannakakis IA, et al. (2001) Reporting of conflicts of interest in guidelines of preventive and therapeutic interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 1: 3
28. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC (1992) A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 268: 240-248
29. Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA (2005) Early extreme contradictory estimates may appear in published research: The Proteus phenomenon in molecular genetics research and randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol 58: 543-549
30. Ntzani EE, Ioannidis JP (2003) Predictive ability of DNA microarrays for cancer outcomes and correlates: An empirical assessment. Lancet 362: 1439-1444
31. Ransohoff DF (2004) Rules of evidence for cancer molecular-marker discovery and validation. Nat Rev Cancer 4: 309-314
32. Lindley DV (1957) A statistical paradox. Biometrika 44: 187-192
33. Bartlett MS (1957) A comment on D.V. Lindley's statistical paradox. Biometrika 44: 533-534
34. Senn SJ (2001) Two cheers for P-values. J Epidemiol Biostat 6: 193-204
35. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, et al. (2004) Clinical trial registration: A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 351: 1250-1251
36. Ioannidis JPA (2005) Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 294: 218-228
37. Hsueh HM, Chen JJ, Kodell RL (2003) Comparison of methods for estimating the number of true null hypotheses in multiplicity testing. J Biopharm Stat 13: 675-689