A two-stage review process for randomized controlled trials: the ultimate solution for publication bias?

Law, Lawrence Siu-Chun; Lo, Elaine Ah-Gi

doi:10.1007/s12630-016-0730-y

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 Although there are most definitely some limitations with their proposed approach, I fully agree with the concept of assessing the validity of a manuscript (via its research question, hypothesis, methods, and baseline characteristics of its participants) separately from its results. Indeed, several journals have already established whole sections dedicated to accepting papers for publication even before the conduct of the experiments under the proviso that the authors have received an ''in-principle acceptance'' after peer review of their submitted study protocols from the journal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 74%

In reply: A two-stage review process for randomized controlled trials: the ultimate solution for publication bias?

Jones

2016

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 74%

In reply: A two-stage review process for randomized controlled trials: the ultimate solution for publication bias?

Jones

2016

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Problems pertaining to reliability have also been raised in exercise and sports science research [6,7]. Potential means to address the replication crisis and enhance research reliability include trial registration [8], publishing the protocol before data collection, the two-stage review process (Registered Reports) [8,9], a results-free peer review [10], decreasing the risk of bias [9], increasing sample sizes [3,7,11], conducting replication studies [1,2,6], and improving reporting quality and transparency [6,8,[12][13][14].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

(Protocol) Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES): An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews, Guidelines, and Position Stands for Item Extraction

Lin¹,

Chueh²,

Hung³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe issues of replication and scientific transparency have been raised in exercise and sports science research. A potential means to address the replication crisis and enhance research reliability is to improve reporting quality and transparency. This study aims to formulate a reporting checklist as a supplement to the existing reporting guidelines, specifically for resistance exercise studies.MethodsSystematic reviews/meta-analyses, guidelines, and position stands related to resistance exercise since inception will be searched in PubMed and Scopus. Only studies published in English will be included. Two authors will independently screen titles/abstracts and then full-text articles against the inclusion criteria. Basic data will be extracted by the same two authors independently. The same two authors will independently extract items from systematic reviews, guidelines, and position stands that could potentially influence training efficiency, physiological/psychological functions, other health-related variables, or replication. Summaries of the findings and items extracted from the included systematic reviews/meta-analyses and included position stands or guidelines will be presented as tables. Using items adapted from the existing checklist Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT), a preferred reporting checklist for resistance exercise studies will be formulated. The protocol for this study was developed according to the reporting checklist for umbrella reviews published by Onishi and Furukawa in 2016.DiscussionThe proposed study is expected to build a reporting checklist with a high level of evidence, which can improve the reporting quality of future resistance exercise studies.Ethics and disseminationApproval from a human/animal research ethics committee is not required. The findings of the proposed study will be disseminated through conference presentations, our lab’s website in plain language, and, if possible, letters to the editor in peer-reviewed journals related to sport and exercise science.RegistrationThis study is registered with the EQUATOR Network under the title “Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES).” PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021235259.

show abstract

Apophenia and anesthesia: how we sometimes change our practice prematurely

Hanson

Lavallee

Thiele

2021

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human beings are predisposed to identifying false patterns in statistical noise, a likely survival advantage during our evolutionary development. Moreover, humans seem to prefer “positive” results over “negative” ones. These two cognitive features lay a framework for premature adoption of falsely positive studies. Added to this predisposition is the tendency of journals to “overbid” for exciting or newsworthy manuscripts, incentives in both the academic and publishing industries that value change over truth and scientific rigour, and a growing dependence on complex statistical techniques that some reviewers do not understand. The purpose of this article is to describe the underlying causes of premature adoption and provide recommendations that may improve the quality of published science.

show abstract

A two-stage review process for randomized controlled trials: the ultimate solution for publication bias?

Cited by 6 publications

References 5 publications

In reply: A two-stage review process for randomized controlled trials: the ultimate solution for publication bias?

In reply: A two-stage review process for randomized controlled trials: the ultimate solution for publication bias?

(Protocol) Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES): An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews, Guidelines, and Position Stands for Item Extraction

Apophenia and anesthesia: how we sometimes change our practice prematurely

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About