Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.
CONTEXT: Selective reporting of outcomes within published studies based on the nature or direction of their results has been widely suspected, but direct evidence of such bias is currently limited to case reports. OBJECTIVE: To study empirically the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias in a c...
Main Authors: | Chan, A, Hróbjartsson, A, Haahr, M, Gøtzsche, P, Altman, D |
---|---|
Format: | Journal article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
2004
|
Similar Items
-
Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study.
by: Pildal, J, et al.
Published: (2005) -
Reporting on blinding in trial protocols and corresponding publications was often inadequate but rarely contradictory.
by: Hróbjartsson, A, et al.
Published: (2009) -
Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols.
by: Chan, A, et al.
Published: (2008) -
Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials.
by: Mathieu, S, et al.
Published: (2009) -
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials
by: Chan, A, et al.
Published: (2003)