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: mtDNA analysis give glimpse into decline of Neanderthals in Europe, and more.

The University of Arizona's Raina Maier writes that an understanding of the Earth's microbiome is needed.

The proposed Canadian budget emphasizes partnerships with industry, Nature News reports.

An Australian study of personalized medicine has run into problems as it recruits patients.