Selective Reporting Biases in Cancer Prognostic Factor Studies

P. Kyzas; Konstantinos T. Loizou; John P A Ioannidis

doi:10.1093/jnci/dji184

Abstract

1 min read

Selective reporting may spuriously inflate the importance of postulated prognostic factors for various malignancies. We recommend that meta-analyses thereof should maximize retrieval of information and standardize definitions.

Discussion(0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment.

Related publications

Article2007

Quality of Reporting of Cancer Prognostic Marker Studies: Association With Reported Prognostic Effect

P. Kyzas, Despina Denaxa-Kyza, John P A Ioannidis

Article2020

Guidelines for reporting methodological studies in health research

Daeria O. Lawson, Livia Puljak, Dawid Pieper, Stefan Schandelmaier, Gary R. Collins, Romina Brignardello‐Petersen, David Moher, Peter Tugwell, Vivian Welch, Zainab Samaan

Article2012

Knowledge Integration in Cancer: Current Landscape and Future Prospects

John P A Ioannidis, Sheri D. Schully, Tram Kim Lam, Muin J. Khoury

Article2013

Evidence of reporting biases in voxel-based morphometry (VBM) studies of psychiatric and neurological disorders

Paolo Fusar‐Poli, Joaquim Raduà, Marianna Frascarelli, Andrea Mechelli, Stefan Borgwardt, Fabio Di Fabio, Massimo Biondi, John P A Ioannidis, Sean P. David

Article2009

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration

Alessandro Liberati, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Peter C Gøtzsche, John P A Ioannidis, Mike Clarke, P.J. Devereaux, Jos Kleijnen, David Moher