Addressing Reporting Biases

By J. Sterne, Matthias Egger, David Moher. 2008

720 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Sociology and Political Science, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9a91ca219c88049e65f0bb90c251ba20648edda9

How researchers see this paper

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

In Sociology and Political Science

1. David Moher
2. John P. A. Ioannidis
3. Douglas G. Altman
4. P. Gøtzsche
5. Mike Clarke
6. K. F. Schulz
7. Matthew J. Page
8. Daniele Fanelli

In Statistics and Probability

1. David Moher
2. Douglas G. Altman
3. John P. A. Ioannidis
4. K. F. Schulz
5. J. Tetzlaff
6. Mike Clarke
7. P. Gøtzsche
8. A. Liberati

Citations in the corpus

• The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009, background): “Several alternative tests for bias have also been proposed, beyond the ones testing small study bias [215,219,220], but none can be considered a gold standard.”
• The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009, background): “Several alternative tests for bias have also been proposed, beyond the ones testing small study bias [215,219,220], but none can be considered a gold standard.”
• The Efficacy of Multi-component Positive Psychology Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2020, background): “Absence of publication bias is present when there is a symmetric distribution of studies around the effect size, while a higher concentration of studies on one side of the effect size than on the other indicates publication bias (Sterne et al. 2008).”