Comparison of Effect Sizes Associated With Biomarkers Reported in Highly Cited Individual Articles and in Subsequent Meta-analyses

John P A Ioannidis

doi:10.1001/jama.2011.713

Back

Comparison of Effect Sizes Associated With Biomarkers Reported in Highly Cited Individual Articles and in Subsequent Meta-analyses

Article 2011 en

Abstract

1 min read

Highly cited biomarker studies often report larger effect estimates for postulated associations than are reported in subsequent meta-analyses evaluating the same associations.

Discussion(0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment.

Related publications

Article2021

Effect Sizes Reported in Highly Cited Emotion Research Compared With Larger Studies and Meta-Analyses Addressing the Same Questions

Ioana A. Cristea, Raluca Georgescu, John P A Ioannidis

Preprint2021

Are effect sizes reported in highly cited emotion research overestimated relative to larger studies and meta-analyses addressing the same questions?

Ioana A. Cristea, John P A Ioannidis, Raluca Georgescu

Article2022

Environmental risk factors for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: umbrella review and comparison of meta-analyses of summary and individual participant data

Xiaoting Shi, Haoran Zhuo, Yuxuan Du, Kate Nyhan, John P A Ioannidis, Joshua D. Wallach

Dataset

Dataset and analysis scripts for Cristea et al. (2021)

Ioana A. Cristea, Raluca Georgescu, John P A Ioannidis

Article2020

Evidence-based umbrella review of 162 peripheral biomarkers for major mental disorders

André F. Carvalho, Marco Solmi, Marcos Sanches, Myrela O. Machado, Brendon Stubbs, Olesya Ajnakina, Chelsea Sherman, Yue Sun, Celina S. Liu, André R. Brunoni, Giorgio Pigato, Brisa S. Fernandes, Beatrice Bortolato, M. Ishrat Husain, Elena Dragioti, Joseph Firth, Theodore D. Cosco, Michael Maes, Michael Berk, Krista L. Lanctôt, Eduard Vieta, Diego A. Pizzagalli, Lee Smith, Paolo Fusar‐Poli,