The Scientific Impact of Positive and Negative Phase 3 Cancer Clinical Trials.

PubWeight™: 2.09‹?› | Rank: Top 2%

🔗 View Article (PMID 26967260)

Published in JAMA Oncol on July 01, 2016

Authors

Joseph M Unger1, William E Barlow1, Scott D Ramsey2, Michael LeBlanc1, Charles D Blanke3, Dawn L Hershman4

Author Affiliations

1: SWOG Statistical Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
2: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
3: SWOG Group Chair's Office/Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.
4: Columbia University, New York, New York.

Articles cited by this

Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics (1986) 60.93

Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science (1972) 15.98

Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol (1986) 12.14

Underrepresentation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer-treatment trials. N Engl J Med (1999) 11.44

The scientific impact of nations. Nature (2004) 11.06

Akaike's information criterion in generalized estimating equations. Biometrics (2001) 10.97

A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One (2009) 6.25

Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2009) 5.57

Commentary: practicing on the tip of an information iceberg? Evidence of underpublication of registered clinical trials in oncology. Oncologist (2008) 3.71

Treatment success in cancer: new cancer treatment successes identified in phase 3 randomized controlled trials conducted by the National Cancer Institute-sponsored cooperative oncology groups, 1955 to 2006. Arch Intern Med (2008) 3.07

Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed Digit Libr (2006) 3.01

Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding. PLoS One (2013) 2.39

Evaluation of new treatments in radiation oncology: are they better than standard treatments? JAMA (2005) 2.37

Comparison of survival outcomes among cancer patients treated in and out of clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst (2014) 2.30

Accrual experience of National Cancer Institute Cooperative Group phase III trials activated from 2000 to 2007. J Clin Oncol (2010) 1.52

The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PLoS One (2014) 1.48

The paradox of equipoise: the principle that drives and limits therapeutic discoveries in clinical research. Cancer Control (2009) 1.04

Cancer Care Delivery Research: Building the Evidence Base to Support Practice Change in Community Oncology. J Clin Oncol (2015) 1.03