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

Better Than Some

The Meta-Institute

Not So Matchy-Matchy

On the Board

In PLOS this week: new gene linked to ocular coloboma, new statistical model for interrogating gene expression networks, and more.

With a new collection, PLOS highlights negative results it has published.

A pair of researchers examines political leanings and views on genomics, finding more of a role for optimism and pessimism in people's views.

The genome of the carnivorous bladderwort is smaller than many other plant genomes, but it still holds on to important genes.