Why most published meta-analysis findings are false
- 25 June 2019
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Techniques in Coloproctology
- Vol. 23 (9), 925-928
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02020-y
Abstract
No abstract availableThis publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Baseline Morphine Consumption May Explain Between-Study Heterogeneity in Meta-analyses of Adjuvant Analgesics and Improve Precision and Accuracy of Effect EstimatesAnesthesia & Analgesia, 2018
- High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency MedicineEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology, 2017
- Poor agreement in significant findings between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized trials in perioperative medicineBritish Journal of Anaesthesia, 2016
- Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology JournalsAnesthesia & Analgesia, 2016
- Risk of bias and methodological appraisal practices in systematic reviews published in anaesthetic journals: a meta-epidemiological studyAnaesthesia, 2016
- Systematic Reviews of Anesthesiologic Interventions Reported as Statistically SignificantAnesthesia & Analgesia, 2015
- Why Most Published Research Findings Are FalsePLoS Medicine, 2005
- Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1997