IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1000152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ensuring Integrity in Comparative Effectiveness Research: Accentuate the Negative

Author

Listed:
  • The PLoS Medicine Editors

Abstract

The PLoS Medicine Editors discuss the importance of negative studies in maintaining the integrity of the medical literature, especially when clinical effectiveness at issue.

Suggested Citation

  • The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2009. "Ensuring Integrity in Comparative Effectiveness Research: Accentuate the Negative," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-2, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1000152
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000152
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000152&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000152?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dick Menzies & Andrea Benedetti & Anita Paydar & Sarah Royce & Madhukar Pai & William Burman & Andrew Vernon & Christian Lienhardt, 2009. "Standardized Treatment of Active Tuberculosis in Patients with Previous Treatment and/or with Mono-resistance to Isoniazid: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-14, September.
    2. Joseph S Ross & Gregory K Mulvey & Elizabeth M Hines & Steven E Nissen & Harlan M Krumholz, 2009. "Trial Publication after Registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: A Cross-Sectional Analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-9, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roberta W Scherer & Pamela C Sieving & Ann-Margret Ervin & Kay Dickersin, 2012. "Can We Depend on Investigators to Identify and Register Randomized Controlled Trials?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-6, September.
    2. The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2009. "Five Years of Access and Activism," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-2, October.
    3. Diana de la Iglesia & Miguel García-Remesal & Alberto Anguita & Miguel Muñoz-Mármol & Casimir Kulikowski & Víctor Maojo, 2014. "A Machine Learning Approach to Identify Clinical Trials Involving Nanodrugs and Nanodevices from ClinicalTrials.gov," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Liu Xuemei & Li Youping & Yin Senlin & Song Shangqi, 2010. "Result Publication of Chinese Trials in World Health Organization Primary Registries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-7, September.
    5. Hiroki Saito & Christopher J Gill, 2014. "How Frequently Do the Results from Completed US Clinical Trials Enter the Public Domain? - A Statistical Analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov Database," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-9, July.
    6. Ioana Nicolau & Daphne Ling & Lulu Tian & Christian Lienhardt & Madhukar Pai, 2012. "Research Questions and Priorities for Tuberculosis: A Survey of Published Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-1, July.
    7. The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2011. "Best Practice in Systematic Reviews: The Importance of Protocols and Registration," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-2, February.
    8. Sylvain Mathieu & An-Wen Chan & Philippe Ravaud, 2013. "Use of Trial Register Information during the Peer Review Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-4, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1000152. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.