Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research.

By John P. A. Ioannidis. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2005

1,477 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Pharmacology, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2a3634a1bdcb86fcc1377ee1cf6f0e8399ba87b2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Pharmacology

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: a case for a Fragility Index. (2014, background): “The importance of fragility is underscored by the number of RCTs that initially reported statistically significant treatment effects but were later shown to be either ineffective (16%) or have effects that were substantially less than initially reported (16%) [3].”
Producing wrong data without doing anything obviously wrong! (2009, background): “For example, Ioannidis [9] reports that in a survey of 49 highly-cited medical articles, later work contradicted 16% of the articles and found another 16% had made overly strong claims.”
Is the Replicability Crisis Overblown? Three Arguments Examined (2012, background): “Thanks to the work of Ioannidis (2005b) and other statisticians, the essential problems with this view are already familiar to many.”
Facts Are More Important Than Novelty (2014, result): “…Kane, 1984), library sciences (Winters, 1996), marketing (Evanschitzky, Baumgarth, Hubbard, & Armstrong, 2007; Hubbard & Armstrong, 1994), medicine (Ioannidis, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c), political science (Golden, 1995; King, 1995), public health (Valentine et al., 2011), and sociology (La Sorte, 1972).”
A Call for Examining Replication and Bias in Special Education Research (2014, background): “However, is it possible that, as Ioannidis (2005b) provocatively suggested, many research findings are actually false?”
What Five Decades of Research Tells Us About the Effects of Youth Psychological Therapy: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis and Implications for Science and Practice (2017, background): “ESs for high impact discovery trials tend to be larger, especially if the initial studies were done with small samples (Ioannidis, 2005).”
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank (2013, result): “Similar effects have been reported in the context of other research fields (Siontis et al., 2011; Ioannidis, 2005a; Ioannidis and Panagiotou, 2011).”
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling (2012, neutral): “…have expressed concerns over failures to replicate published results (Bower & Mayer, 1985; Crabbe, Wahlsten, & Dudek, 1999; Doyen, Klein, Pichon, & Cleeremans, 2012, Enserink, 1999; Galak, LeBoeuf, Nelson, & Simmons, 2012; Ioannidis, 2005a, 2005b; Palmer, 2000; Steele, Bass, & Crook, 1999).”
An Investigation into the Validity of Some Metrics for Automatically Evaluating Natural Language Generation Systems (2009, background): “In medicine, recent work by Ioannidis (2005a, 2005b) and others (partially based on analyses of whether experimental results are replicated in follow-up studies) has suggested that a very conservative statistical analysis should be used in medical research.”
R&D and productivity in OECD firms and industries: A hierarchical meta-regression analysis ☆ (2016, neutral): “Testing for selection bias is justified given the evidence about its prevalence in both social-scientific and medical research (Card and Krueger, 1995; Dickersin and Min, 1993; Ioannidis, 2005; Simmons et al., 2011).”
Replication Research and Special Education (2016, background): “Because this phenomenon has persisted for decades (Rothstein, Sutton, & Borenstein, 2006), Ioannidis (2005b) theorized that most published research is false and that publication bias lends to an overrepresentation of false positive findings in a body of literature (i.e., positive findings often are…”
Reproducibility in forecasting research (2015, background): “In the medical field, Ioannidis (2005) examined 45 highly-cited articles from clinical journals and found that seven were contradicted by subsequent research and another seven were found to have initially stronger effects.”