2,497 publications from this institution
The studies eligible for systematic review. (DOC 444 kb)
Reproducibility concerns in biomedical research have persisted for over a decade, with large-scale assessments revealing significant challenges in replicating findings. Despite widespread acknowledgement of these issues, responses remain inconsistent, and proposed solutions often lack rigorous evaluation. This review examines the factors that contribute to irreproducibility in conducting, reporting, and reviewing research and assesses the effectiveness and desirability of interventions aimed at improving reproducibility. It highlights the need for balanced scientific reforms that strengthen reproducibility without stifling innovation or introducing unintended consequences. A critical appraisal of the role of meta-research is essential to ensure sustainable improvements in research quality.
Abstract Summary: Heterogeneity and genome search meta-analysis (HEGESMA) is a comprehensive software for performing genome scan meta-analysis, a quantitative method to identify genetic regions (bins) with consistently increased linkage score across multiple genome scans, and for testing the heterogeneity of the results of each bin across scans. The program provides as an output the average of ranks and three heterogeneity statistics, as well as corresponding significance levels. Statistical inferences are based on Monte Carlo permutation tests. The program allows both unweighted and weighted analysis, with the weights for each study as specified by the user. Furthermore, the program performs heterogeneity analyses restricted to the bins with similar average ranks. Availability: http://biomath.med.uth.gr Contact: zintza@med.uth.gr
Early initiation of zidovudine therapy offers a benefit that decreases over time. Symptomatic patients experience a larger benefit than asymptomatic patients. The implications beyond 3 years of follow-up remain unknown.
Abstract Background Different analytical approaches can influence the associations estimated in observational studies. We assessed the variability of effect estimates reported within and across observational studies evaluating the impact of alcohol on breast cancer. Methods We abstracted largest harmful, largest protective and smallest (closest to the null value of 1.0) relative risk estimates in studies included in a recent alcohol–breast cancer meta-analysis, and recorded how they differed based on five model specification characteristics, including exposure definition, exposure contrast levels, study populations, adjustment covariates and/or model approaches. For each study, we approximated vibration of effects by dividing the largest by the smallest effect estimate [i.e. ratio of odds ratio (ROR)]. Results Among 97 eligible studies, 85 (87.6%) reported both harmful and protective relative effect estimates for an alcohol–breast cancer relationship, which ranged from 1.1 to 17.9 and 0.0 to 1.0, respectively. The RORs comparing the largest and smallest estimates in value ranged from 1.0 to 106.2, with a median of 3.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 2.0–5.2]. One-third (35, 36.1%) of the RORs were based on extreme effect estimates with at least three different model specification characteristics; the vast majority (87, 89.7%) had different exposure definitions or contrast levels. Similar vibrations of effect were observed when only extreme estimates with differences based on study populations and/or adjustment covariates were compared. Conclusions Most observational studies evaluating the impact of alcohol on breast cancer report relative effect estimates for the same associations that diverge by >2-fold. Therefore, observational studies should estimate the vibration of effects to provide insight regarding the stability of findings.
<p>Editable version of <a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000022#pmed-1000022-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a>.</p> <p>(97 KB DOC).</p>