Highly-cited biomarker studies tend to report larger effect estimates for associations than subsequent meta-analyses do, says a literature review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. John Ioannidis and Orestis Panagiotou combed through the ISI Web of Science to find studies that had been cited more than 400 times and had been published in a highly cited journal, and they searched for meta-analyses of those studies. From this, they evaluated 35 highly cited associations.

Get the full story

This story is free
for registered users

Registering provides access to this and other free content.

Register now.

Already have an account?
Login Now.

Related Posts

In Science this week: swapping yeast genes with human orthologs to study conservation of function, and more.

Hong Kong is using DNA phenotyping to shame litterers.

A study appearing in Cell suggests some metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients could benefit from PARP inhibitor therapy.

NIH's Francis Collins writes that scientific advances are poised to help populations all over the world, but more scientists are needed to keep the momentum.