Published in PLoS Med on August 30, 2005
Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov (2011) 22.33
A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature (2012) 14.63
Estimation of significance thresholds for genomewide association scans. Genet Epidemiol (2008) 8.88
phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS One (2013) 7.23
Reliability and reproducibility issues in DNA microarray measurements. Trends Genet (2005) 6.79
Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ (2014) 6.78
Needles in stacks of needles: finding disease-causal variants in a wealth of genomic data. Nat Rev Genet (2011) 6.52
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2012) 5.89
Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol (2010) 5.58
Twenty bone-mineral-density loci identified by large-scale meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet (2009) 5.32
Outcome reporting among drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Ann Intern Med (2010) 5.18
A critical review of the first 10 years of candidate gene-by-environment interaction research in psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry (2011) 5.15
Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med (2008) 5.09
What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy. BMC Med Res Methodol (2010) 5.04
GWAS of 126,559 individuals identifies genetic variants associated with educational attainment. Science (2013) 4.71
A Bayesian measure of the probability of false discovery in genetic epidemiology studies. Am J Hum Genet (2007) 4.21
Methods for meta-analysis in genetic association studies: a review of their potential and pitfalls. Hum Genet (2007) 3.92
Systems medicine: the future of medical genomics and healthcare. Genome Med (2009) 3.85
False-positive results in cancer epidemiology: a plea for epistemological modesty. J Natl Cancer Inst (2008) 3.72
Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2016) 3.72
Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal. Trials (2010) 3.45
The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey. CMAJ (2007) 3.40
Meta-analysis in genome-wide association studies. Pharmacogenomics (2009) 3.39
A genomic pathway approach to a complex disease: axon guidance and Parkinson disease. PLoS Genet (2007) 3.28
Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res (2010) 2.97
Effects of screening for psychological distress on patient outcomes in cancer: a systematic review. J Psychosom Res (2013) 2.78
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Front Hum Neurosci (2013) 2.78
Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2014) 2.77
Data resource profile: cardiovascular disease research using linked bespoke studies and electronic health records (CALIBER). Int J Epidemiol (2012) 2.75
Improving validation practices in "omics" research. Science (2011) 2.73
Transforming epidemiology for 21st century medicine and public health. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2013) 2.56
How to make more published research true. PLoS Med (2014) 2.55
Effects of interventions on survival in acute respiratory distress syndrome: an umbrella review of 159 published randomized trials and 29 meta-analyses. Intensive Care Med (2014) 2.51
Prognostic role of PIK3CA mutation in colorectal cancer: cohort study and literature review. Clin Cancer Res (2012) 2.50
Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS One (2011) 2.47
An open investigation of the reproducibility of cancer biology research. Elife (2014) 2.43
Systematic evaluation of environmental factors: persistent pollutants and nutrients correlated with serum lipid levels. Int J Epidemiol (2012) 2.42
Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies. CMAJ (2006) 2.40
Top 10 Replicated Findings From Behavioral Genetics. Perspect Psychol Sci (2016) 2.36
Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others. PLoS Med (2007) 2.36
An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values. R Soc Open Sci (2014) 2.33
Most published research findings are false-but a little replication goes a long way. PLoS Med (2007) 2.26
Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med (2010) 2.24
ESC working group cellular biology of the heart: position paper: improving the preclinical assessment of novel cardioprotective therapies. Cardiovasc Res (2014) 2.24
A Framework for Improving the Quality of Research in the Biological Sciences. MBio (2016) 2.24
A Framework for Enhancing the Value of Research for Dissemination and Implementation. Am J Public Health (2015) 2.19
Local literature bias in genetic epidemiology: an empirical evaluation of the Chinese literature. PLoS Med (2005) 2.18
Genome-wide association studies, field synopses, and the development of the knowledge base on genetic variation and human diseases. Am J Epidemiol (2009) 2.15
The epidemiology of triple-negative breast cancer, including race. Cancer Causes Control (2009) 2.14
The problem of pseudoreplication in neuroscientific studies: is it affecting your analysis? BMC Neurosci (2010) 2.13
The use of google trends in health care research: a systematic review. PLoS One (2014) 2.12
Most reported genetic associations with general intelligence are probably false positives. Psychol Sci (2012) 2.10
Industry sponsorship bias in research findings: a network meta-analysis of LDL cholesterol reduction in randomised trials of statins. BMJ (2014) 2.09
Cause or Effect? Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Falls in Older Adults: A Systematic Review. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry (2014) 2.08
Interdisciplinary education to integrate pathology and epidemiology: towards molecular and population-level health science. Am J Epidemiol (2012) 2.07
Considerations for observational research using large data sets in radiation oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2014) 2.06
US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2013) 2.06
Everything you never wanted to know about circular analysis, but were afraid to ask. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab (2010) 2.05
A strategy for comparing the contributions of environmental chemicals and other risk factors to neurodevelopment of children. Environ Health Perspect (2011) 1.99
Replication studies: Bad copy. Nature (2012) 1.99
Hard-Wired Bias: How Even Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trials Can Be Skewed From the Start. Mayo Clin Proc (2015) 1.99
OASIS: online application for the survival analysis of lifespan assays performed in aging research. PLoS One (2011) 1.98
Prognostic effect size of cardiovascular biomarkers in datasets from observational studies versus randomised trials: meta-epidemiology study. BMJ (2011) 1.97
Molecular pathological epidemiology of epigenetics: emerging integrative science to analyze environment, host, and disease. Mod Pathol (2013) 1.95
Pragmatic replication trial of health promotion coaching for obesity in serious mental illness and maintenance of outcomes. Am J Psychiatry (2014) 1.94
The ENIGMA Consortium: large-scale collaborative analyses of neuroimaging and genetic data. Brain Imaging Behav (2014) 1.90
Replication in genome-wide association studies. Stat Sci (2009) 1.89
Gene × environment interaction studies have not properly controlled for potential confounders: the problem and the (simple) solution. Biol Psychiatry (2013) 1.88
The increasing urgency for standards in basic biologic research. Cancer Res (2014) 1.87
Reforming science: methodological and cultural reforms. Infect Immun (2011) 1.85
Clinical outcome prediction by microRNAs in human cancer: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst (2012) 1.85
Evaluating the impact of database heterogeneity on observational study results. Am J Epidemiol (2013) 1.83
Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2016) 1.83
SHRINE: enabling nationally scalable multi-site disease studies. PLoS One (2013) 1.80
Personalized medicine: hope or hype? Eur Heart J (2012) 1.80
Confidence limits, error bars and method comparison in molecular modeling. Part 1: the calculation of confidence intervals. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2014) 1.78
The next generation of large-scale epidemiologic research: implications for training cancer epidemiologists. Am J Epidemiol (2014) 1.73
Modelling the effects of subjective and objective decision making in scientific peer review. Nature (2013) 1.73
Interpreting observational studies: why empirical calibration is needed to correct p-values. Stat Med (2013) 1.72
The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLoS Biol (2015) 1.71
Why your new cancer biomarker may never work: recurrent patterns and remarkable diversity in biomarker failures. Cancer Res (2012) 1.69
Large-scale evidence for the effect of the COLIA1 Sp1 polymorphism on osteoporosis outcomes: the GENOMOS study. PLoS Med (2006) 1.68
Current sample size conventions: flaws, harms, and alternatives. BMC Med (2010) 1.66
Serum BDNF concentrations as peripheral manifestations of depression: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analyses on 179 associations (N=9484). Mol Psychiatry (2013) 1.66
Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries. PLoS One (2014) 1.65
Fine mapping versus replication in whole-genome association studies. Am J Hum Genet (2007) 1.64
Detecting autozygosity through runs of homozygosity: a comparison of three autozygosity detection algorithms. BMC Genomics (2011) 1.64
Confounding underlies the apparent month of birth effect in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol (2013) 1.62
Six persistent research misconceptions. J Gen Intern Med (2014) 1.61
Effectiveness of antidepressants: an evidence myth constructed from a thousand randomized trials? Philos Ethics Humanit Med (2008) 1.61
Evolution and translation of research findings: from bench to where? PLoS Clin Trials (2006) 1.60
Short-term efficacy of physical interventions in osteoarthritic knee pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials. BMC Musculoskelet Disord (2007) 1.59
Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data. PLoS One (2015) 1.58
The genetics of bipolar disorder. Neuroscience (2009) 1.57
Systematic analysis, comparison, and integration of disease based human genetic association data and mouse genetic phenotypic information. BMC Med Genomics (2010) 1.57
Tracking replicability as a method of post-publication open evaluation. Front Comput Neurosci (2012) 1.56
Are treatments more effective than placebos? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One (2013) 1.56
The Role of Social Network Technologies in Online Health Promotion: A Narrative Review of Theoretical and Empirical Factors Influencing Intervention Effectiveness. J Med Internet Res (2015) 1.55
Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science (1999) 83.27
Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA (2000) 55.37
Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet (1999) 37.76
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet (2001) 31.74
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA (2004) 23.87
A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA (1992) 22.27
Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies. J Natl Cancer Inst (2004) 19.00
Prediction of cancer outcome with microarrays: a multiple random validation strategy. Lancet (2005) 17.75
Searching for genetic determinants in the new millennium. Nature (2000) 17.50
Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet (2001) 16.30
Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med (2004) 14.78
Epidemiology faces its limits. Science (1995) 12.39
Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med (2004) 11.47
Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA (2005) 11.15
Sifting the evidence-what's wrong with significance tests? BMJ (2001) 9.50
What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med (2000) 9.18
Problems of reporting genetic associations with complex outcomes. Lancet (2003) 8.11
Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials? Stat Med (1985) 7.67
ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials. International Conference on Harmonisation E9 Expert Working Group. Stat Med (1999) 7.32
Failing the public health--rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA. N Engl J Med (2004) 7.06
Those confounded vitamins: what can we learn from the differences between observational versus randomised trial evidence? Lancet (2004) 6.37
When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet (2004) 6.19
Microarrays and molecular research: noise discovery? Lancet (2005) 4.79
Rules of evidence for cancer molecular-marker discovery and validation. Nat Rev Cancer (2004) 4.73
Predictive ability of DNA microarrays for cancer outcomes and correlates: an empirical assessment. Lancet (2003) 4.58
Unpublished rating scales: a major source of bias in randomised controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry (2000) 4.23
Early extreme contradictory estimates may appear in published research: the Proteus phenomenon in molecular genetics research and randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol (2005) 4.14
Genetic associations: false or true? Trends Mol Med (2003) 3.48
Scientific journals and their authors' financial interests: a pilot study. Psychother Psychosom (1998) 2.94
Comparison of methods for estimating the number of true null hypotheses in multiplicity testing. J Biopharm Stat (2003) 2.83
Reporting of conflicts of interest in guidelines of preventive and therapeutic interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol (2001) 2.38
Any casualties in the clash of randomised and observational evidence? BMJ (2001) 2.37
Transfer of technology from statistical journals to the biomedical literature. Past trends and future predictions. JAMA (1994) 2.22
Two cheers for P-values? J Epidemiol Biostat (2001) 1.79
Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA (2005) 11.15
Prediction of cardiovascular disease outcomes and established cardiovascular risk factors by genome-wide association markers. Circ Cardiovasc Genet (2009) 1.95
Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis. J Eval Clin Pract (2008) 1.84
The need to consider the wider agenda in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: breadth, timing, and depth of the evidence. BMJ (2010) 1.20
Predictors of sustained amenorrhea from pulsed intravenous cyclophosphamide in premenopausal women with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol (2002) 0.98
Genetic and molecular epidemiology. J Epidemiol Community Health (2007) 0.84