Abstract
Contradiction and initially stronger effects are not unusual in highly cited research of clinical interventions and their outcomes. The extent to which high citations may provoke contradictions and vice versa needs more study. Controversies are most common with highly cited nonrandomized studies, but even the most highly cited randomized trials may be challenged and refuted over time, especially small ones.
Keywords
MedicineImpact factorRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionSample size determinationClinical trialMeta-analysisDemographyInternal medicinePsychiatry
MeSH Terms
BibliometricsClinical Trials as TopicEvidence-Based MedicinePeriodicals as TopicPublishingRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Design
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Evaluating surrogate markers.
We discuss approaches for efficiently evaluating potential surrogate markers; in particular, we focus on case-cohort designs in which marker evaluation is undertaken only for a ...
Meta-analysis Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies
In previous articles we have focused on the potentials, principles, and pitfalls of meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.1 2 3 4 5 Meta-analysis of observational data i...
Hyperoncotic colloids and acute kidney injury: a meta-analysis of randomized trials
Abstract Introduction It has been hypothesized that hyperoncotic colloids might contribute to acute kidney injury (AKI). However, the validity of this hypothesis remains unclear...
Exercise and regional bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: a meta-analytic review of randomized trials.
By using the meta-analytic approach, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of exercise on regional bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. A total of 11 ran...
Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analyses of randomized trials
The results of a randomized clinical trial can be reported using relative and/or absolute estimators of treatment effect. These various measures convey different information, an...
Publication Info
- Year
- 2005
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 294
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 218-218
- Citations
- 1453
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Altmetric
PlumX Metrics
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
1453
OpenAlex
63
Influential
1062
CrossRef
Cite This
John P. A. Ioannidis
(2005).
Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research.
JAMA
, 294
(2)
, 218-218.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.294.2.218
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1001/jama.294.2.218
- PMID
- 16014596