Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.

By A. Chan, A. Hrõbjartsson, M. Haahr, P. Gøtzsche, Douglas G. Altman. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2004

1,810 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Molecular Biology, Sociology and Political Science, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8e156e50b73bef2d5b6551c6581c59c44f6d2ea4

How researchers see this paper

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

In Molecular Biology

In Sociology and Political Science

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Korean translation of the CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials (2014, neutral): “저자들은 때로 시험의 수행과 보고에서 있어 연구계획서에 기술했던 내용을 무시한다는 경험적 증거들이 있다 [4,22].”
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015, background): “Discussion Studies comparing trial protocols to final reports have widely documented both the presence and the extent of reporting biases in publications of randomized trials [2,40].”
Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018, positive): “Similarly, a synthesis may be constrained by either selective or incomplete reporting 66,67 .”
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. (2007, positive): “Authors or funders may have conflicts of interest that influence any of the following: the design of the study [228]; choice of exposures [228,229], outcomes [230], statistical methods [231], and selective publication of outcomes [230] and studies [232].”
On the Plurality of (Methodological) Worlds: Estimating the Analytic Flexibility of fMRI Experiments (2012, background): “ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE published: 11 October 2012 doi: 10.3389/fnins.2012.00149”
Estimating the Difference Between Published and Unpublished Effect Sizes (2016, methodology): “For instance, we advocate for greater use of cohort studies in the social and behavioral sciences that track the research process of federally funded primary studies (e.g., Chan et al., 2004).”