FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4297697776> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4297697776 abstract "<h3>Objectives</h3> Previous studies about the replicability of clinical research based on the published literature have suggested that highly cited articles can be contradicted or found to have inflated effects and depending of the area under study these founds can vary. An estimate done by John Ioannidis between 1993 and 2004 was the first of its kind, using highly cited articles published in general (specially NEJM and The Lancet) or specialty medical journals with high impact factor. In light of this, there are no recent updates of Ioannidis’s work, and the replicability of this particular research field may have changed over time, since many changes occurred in clinical research such as mandatory pre-registration and reassessments of reporting guidelines. This said, the goal of this study is to estimate the replicability of highly cited clinical studies published between 2004 and 2018. <h3>Method</h3> We searched the Web of Science database for articles studying medical interventions with more than 2000 citations, published between 2004 and 2018 in high-impact medical journals. We then searched for replications of these studies in PubMed using the PICO framework. We evaluated whether replications were successful by the presence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction and by overlap of their effect sizes’ 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with those of the highly cited studies. Potential predictors or replicability and evidence of effect size inflation and were also analyzed. The effects of highly cited studies and replications were used to estimate the latter. For unfavorable outcomes, in which effectiveness increases as the outcome decreases, inflation ratio was defined as the point estimate of the replication divided by that of the original study. For favorable outcomes, in which effectiveness increases along with the outcome measure, the calculation was inverted. <h3>Results</h3> We found a total of 89 eligible studies, of which 24 had valid replications. Of these, 21 (88%) had effect sizes with overlapping 95% CIs. Of 14 highly cited studies with a statistically significant comparison, 12 (86%) had a significant effect in the replication as well. When both criteria were considered together, the replicability was of 83%. Our sample of highly cited studies was composed by randomized clinical trials and seven phase 1 trials. Effect size inflation was marginal, but with higher sample size the findings could be more conclusive. Due to the small number of contradicted studies, our analysis was underpowered to detect predictors of replicability. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Although most highly cited studies did not have eligible replications. The replicability rate of highly cited clinical studies in our sample remains high as in previous estimate in the same research field, with little evidence of systematic effect size inflation. They run counter to the assertion that there is a widespread reproducibility crisis in science, and suggest that this may not be the case for every scientific field. Further research is warranted to examine whether this higher replicability of highly cited clinical research is related to particular research practices that are not as widely used in other areas of biomedical science, such as randomization, blinding or prospective protocol registration. If such links can be reliably established, they can be used to inform attempts to improve replicability in different research fields." @default.
• W4297697776 created "2022-09-30" @default.
• W4297697776 creator A5024131285 @default.
• W4297697776 creator A5084902699 @default.
• W4297697776 creator A5088631319 @default.
• W4297697776 date "2022-06-01" @default.
• W4297697776 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W4297697776 title "184 Estimating the replicability of highly cited clinical research between 2004 and 2018" @default.
• W4297697776 doi "https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-podabstracts.105" @default.
• W4297697776 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4297697776 type Work @default.
• W4297697776 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4297697776 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W4297697776 hasAuthorship W4297697776A5024131285 @default.
• W4297697776 hasAuthorship W4297697776A5084902699 @default.
• W4297697776 hasAuthorship W4297697776A5088631319 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C149782125 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C20387591 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C27415008 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C2779455604 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C2780439572 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C3020774429 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C105795698 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C118552586 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C126322002 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C149782125 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C15744967 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C17744445 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C199539241 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C20387591 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C27415008 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C2779455604 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C2779473830 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C2780439572 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C3020774429 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C33923547 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C41008148 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C44249647 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C512399662 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C71924100 @default.
• W4297697776 hasConceptScore W4297697776C95190672 @default.
• W4297697776 hasLocation W42976977761 @default.
• W4297697776 hasOpenAccess W4297697776 @default.
• W4297697776 hasPrimaryLocation W42976977761 @default.
• W4297697776 hasRelatedWork W1937920393 @default.
• W4297697776 hasRelatedWork W2398684953 @default.
• W4297697776 hasRelatedWork W2527969051 @default.
• W4297697776 hasRelatedWork W2790570163 @default.
• W4297697776 hasRelatedWork W2960124638 @default.
• W4297697776 hasRelatedWork W3165667450 @default.
• W4297697776 hasRelatedWork W4281777036 @default.
• W4297697776 hasRelatedWork W4285740326 @default.
• W4297697776 hasRelatedWork W4291135843 @default.
• W4297697776 hasRelatedWork W4308964745 @default.
• W4297697776 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4297697776 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4297697776 workType "article" @default.