Contradicting/negative results in clinical research: Why (do we get these)? Why not (get these published)? Where (to publish)?

Sridharan, Kannan; Sivaramakrishnan, Gowri

doi:10.4103/2229-3485.140546

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Journals that are open to null results are traditional journals that publish peer-reviewed manuscripts but welcome all studies regardless of outcome. Such journals have clear public policies to publish manuscripts describing well-designed studies with null results, results that appear to contradict those of previous publications [ 32 ] or other research outcomes that are hard to publish. Examples include PeerJ and PLOS ONE .…”

Section: New Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

fiddle: a tool to combat publication bias by getting research out of the file drawer and into the scientific community

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statistically significant findings are more likely to be published than non-significant or null findings, leaving scientists and healthcare personnel to make decisions based on distorted scientific evidence. Continuously expanding ´file drawers’ of unpublished data from well-designed experiments waste resources creates problems for researchers, the scientific community and the public. There is limited awareness of the negative impact that publication bias and selective reporting have on the scientific literature. Alternative publication formats have recently been introduced that make it easier to publish research that is difficult to publish in traditional peer reviewed journals. These include micropublications, data repositories, data journals, preprints, publishing platforms, and journals focusing on null or neutral results. While these alternative formats have the potential to reduce publication bias, many scientists are unaware that these formats exist and don’t know how to use them. Our open source file drawer data liberation effort (fiddle) tool (RRID:SCR_017327 available at: http://s-quest.bihealth.org/fiddle/) is a match-making Shiny app designed to help biomedical researchers to identify the most appropriate publication format for their data. Users can search for a publication format that meets their needs, compare and contrast different publication formats, and find links to publishing platforms. This tool will assist scientists in getting otherwise inaccessible, hidden data out of the file drawer into the scientific community and literature. We briefly highlight essential details that should be included to ensure reporting quality, which will allow others to use and benefit from research published in these new formats.

show abstract

Section: New Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

fiddle: a tool to combat publication bias by getting research out of the file drawer and into the scientific community

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Journals that are open to null results are traditional journals that publish peer-reviewed manuscripts but welcome all studies regardless of outcome. Such journals have clear public policies to publish manuscripts describing well-designed studies with null results, results that appear to contradict those of previous publications [25] or other research outcomes that are hard to publish. Examples include PeerJ and PLoS One.…”

Section: New Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

fiddle: A tool to combat publication bias by getting research out of the file drawer and into the scientific community

Bernard¹,

Weissgerber²,

Bobrov³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This preprint introduces a new open source tool (fiddle - file drawer data liberation effort; available at: http://s-quest.bihealth.org/fiddle/) that aims to help researchers to identify the most appropriate publication format for their dataset. Formats include data repositories, micropublications, preprints, data journals, publishing platforms and journals that are open to null results. Users can search for a publication format that meets their needs, compare and contrast formats, and find links to publishers.

show abstract

“…Съществена особеност тук е систематичната грешка на публикациите [7][8]. Основното опасение се свързва с факта, че е малко вероятно да бъдат публикувани данни от клинични проучвания, които правят негативни констатации или потвърждават вече известни факти и събития [9].…”

Section: всеобхватност и консистентност на стратегията за търсене на unclassified

Методологични Въпроси При Критично Четене На Мета-Анализи За Нуждите На Оценка На Здравните Технологии

Искров¹,

Богоева²,

Стефанов³

2018

Редки болести и лекарства сираци

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Систематичните обзори и мета-анализите вече почти изцяло са заменили традиционните наративни обзори и експертни становища като предпочитан метод за оценка на обобщени научни доказателства. Основна причина за това е прецизната и възпроизводима методология на тези инструменти, което позволява последващ контрол. Различните научни проучвания генерират доказателства с различна степен на грешка, затова систематичният подход към анализа на тези данни осигурява еднакво ниво на взискателност по отношение на качеството и стойността на резултатите.Настоящата публикация има за цел да представи някои основни методологични въпроси при критично четене на мета-анализи. От своя страна, отговорите на тези въпроси са значима предпоставка за формулиране и вземане на информирани решения от страна на заинтересованите страни при оценка на здравните технологии.

show abstract

Contradicting/negative results in clinical research: Why (do we get these)? Why not (get these published)? Where (to publish)?

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

fiddle: a tool to combat publication bias by getting research out of the file drawer and into the scientific community

fiddle: a tool to combat publication bias by getting research out of the file drawer and into the scientific community

fiddle: A tool to combat publication bias by getting research out of the file drawer and into the scientific community

Методологични Въпроси При Критично Четене На Мета-Анализи За Нуждите На Оценка На Здравните Технологии

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About