LIVIVO - The Search Portal for Life Sciences

zur deutschen Oberfläche wechseln
Advanced search

Search results

Result 1 - 10 of total 1199

Search options

  1. Article ; Online: Therapeutic interventions increasing seizure risk in multiple sclerosis: resolving discordant meta-analyses.

    Ioannidis, John P

    Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry

    2024  

    Language English
    Publishing date 2024-02-21
    Publishing country England
    Document type Editorial
    ZDB-ID 3087-9
    ISSN 1468-330X ; 0022-3050
    ISSN (online) 1468-330X
    ISSN 0022-3050
    DOI 10.1136/jnnp-2024-333329
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  2. Article ; Online: Inverse publication reporting bias favouring null, negative results.

    Ioannidis, John P A

    BMJ evidence-based medicine

    2024  Volume 29, Issue 1, Page(s) 6–9

    MeSH term(s) Humans ; Negative Results ; Publication Bias ; Publishing
    Language English
    Publishing date 2024-01-19
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article
    ISSN 2515-4478
    ISSN (online) 2515-4478
    DOI 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112292
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  3. Article: Prolific non-research authors in high impact scientific journals: meta-research study.

    Ioannidis, John P A

    Scientometrics

    2023  Volume 128, Issue 5, Page(s) 3171–3184

    Abstract: Journalistic papers published in high impact scientific journals can be very influential, especially in hot fields. This meta-research analysis aimed to evaluate the publication profiles, impact, and disclosures of conflicts of interest of non-research ... ...

    Abstract Journalistic papers published in high impact scientific journals can be very influential, especially in hot fields. This meta-research analysis aimed to evaluate the publication profiles, impact, and disclosures of conflicts of interest of non-research authors who had published > 200 Scopus-indexed papers in Nature, Science, PNAS, Cell, BMJ, Lancet, JAMA or New England Journal of Medicine. 154 prolific authors were identified, 148 of whom had published 67,825 papers in their main affiliated journal in a non-researcher capacity. Nature, Science, and BMJ have the lion's share of such authors. Scopus characterized 35% of the journalistic publications as full articles and another 11% as short surveys. 264 papers had received more than 100 citations. 40/41 most-cited papers in 2020-2022 were on hot COVID-19 topics. Of 25 massively prolific authors with > 700 publications in one of these journals, many were highly-cited (median citations 2273), almost all had published little or nothing in the Scopus-indexed literature other than in their main affiliated journal, and their influential writing covered diverse hot topics over the years. Of the 25, only 3 had a PhD degree in any subject matter, and 7 had a Master's degree in journalism. Only the BMJ offered conflicts of interest disclosures for prolific science writers in its website, but even then only 2 of the 25 massively prolific authors disclosed potential conflicts with some specificity. The practice of assigning so much power to non-researchers in shaping scientific discourse should be further debated and disclosures of potential conflicts of interest should be emphasized.
    Language English
    Publishing date 2023-04-12
    Publishing country Switzerland
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 435652-4
    ISSN 0138-9130
    ISSN 0138-9130
    DOI 10.1007/s11192-023-04687-5
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  4. Article ; Online: Citation impact and social media visibility of Great Barrington and John Snow signatories for COVID-19 strategy.

    Ioannidis, John P

    BMJ open

    2022  Volume 12, Issue 2, Page(s) e052891

    Abstract: Objective: The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) and the John Snow Memorandum (JSM), each signed by numerous scientists, have proposed hotly debated strategies for handling the COVID-19 pandemic. The current analysis aimed to examine whether the ... ...

    Abstract Objective: The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) and the John Snow Memorandum (JSM), each signed by numerous scientists, have proposed hotly debated strategies for handling the COVID-19 pandemic. The current analysis aimed to examine whether the prevailing narrative that GBD is a minority view among experts is true.
    Methods: The citation impact and social media presence of the key GBD and JSM signatories was assessed. Citation data were obtained from Scopus using a previously validated composite citation indicator that incorporated also coauthorship and author order and ranking was against all authors in the same Science-Metrix scientific field with at least five full papers. Random samples of scientists from the longer lists of signatories were also assessed. The number of Twitter followers for all key signatories was also tracked.
    Results: Among the 47 key GBD signatories, 20, 19 and 21, respectively, were top-cited authors for career impact, recent single-year (2019) impact or either. For comparison, among the 34 key JSM signatories, 11, 14 and 15, respectively, were top cited. Key signatories represented 30 different scientific fields (9 represented in both documents, 17 only in GBD and 4 only in JSM). In a random sample of n=30 scientists among the longer lists of signatories, five in GBD and three in JSM were top cited. By April 2021, only 19/47 key GBD signatories had personal Twitter accounts versus 34/34 of key JSM signatories; 3 key GBD signatories versus 10 key JSM signatories had >50 000 Twitter followers and extraordinary Kardashian K-indices (363-2569). By November 2021, four key GBD signatories versus 13 key JSM signatories had >50 000 Twitter followers.
    Conclusions: Both GBD and JSM include many stellar scientists, but JSM has far more powerful social media presence and this may have shaped the impression that it is the dominant narrative.
    MeSH term(s) Bibliometrics ; COVID-19 ; Humans ; Pandemics ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Social Media
    Language English
    Publishing date 2022-02-09
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 2599832-8
    ISSN 2044-6055 ; 2044-6055
    ISSN (online) 2044-6055
    ISSN 2044-6055
    DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052891
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  5. Article ; Online: The Subjective Interpretation of the Medical Evidence.

    Bauchner, Howard / Ioannidis, John P A

    JAMA health forum

    2024  Volume 5, Issue 3, Page(s) e240213

    MeSH term(s) Evidence-Based Medicine
    Language English
    Publishing date 2024-03-01
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Journal Article
    ISSN 2689-0186
    ISSN (online) 2689-0186
    DOI 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.0213
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  6. Article ; Online: Factors influencing estimated effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in non-randomised studies.

    Ioannidis, John P A

    BMJ evidence-based medicine

    2022  Volume 27, Issue 6, Page(s) 324–329

    Abstract: Non-randomised studies assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness need to consider multiple factors that may generate spurious estimates due to bias or genuinely modify effectiveness. These include pre-existing immunity, vaccination misclassification, ... ...

    Abstract Non-randomised studies assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness need to consider multiple factors that may generate spurious estimates due to bias or genuinely modify effectiveness. These include pre-existing immunity, vaccination misclassification, exposure differences, testing, disease risk factor confounding, hospital admission decision, treatment use differences, and death attribution. It is useful to separate whether the impact of each factor admission decision, treatment use differences, and death attribution. Steps and measures to consider for improving vaccine effectiveness estimation include registration of studies and of analysis plans; sharing of raw data and code; background collection of reliable information; blinded assessment of outcomes, e.g. death causes; using maximal/best information in properly-matched studies, multivariable analyses, propensity analyses, and other models; performing randomised trials, whenever possible, for suitable questions, e.g. booster doses or comparative effectiveness of different vaccination strategies; living meta-analyses of vaccine effectiveness; better communication with both relative and absolute metrics of risk reduction and presentation of uncertainty; and avoidance of exaggeration in communicating results to the general public.
    MeSH term(s) Humans ; COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use ; COVID-19/epidemiology ; COVID-19/prevention & control ; Hospitalization ; Bias ; Uncertainty
    Chemical Substances COVID-19 Vaccines
    Language English
    Publishing date 2022-03-25
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article
    ISSN 2515-4478
    ISSN (online) 2515-4478
    DOI 10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111901
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  7. Article ; Online: Estimating conditional vaccine effectiveness.

    Ioannidis, John P A

    European journal of epidemiology

    2022  Volume 37, Issue 9, Page(s) 885–890

    Abstract: Vaccine effectiveness for COVID-19 is typically estimated for different outcomes that often are hierarchical in severity (e.g. any documented infection, symptomatic infection, hospitalization, death) and subsets of each other. Conditional effectiveness ... ...

    Abstract Vaccine effectiveness for COVID-19 is typically estimated for different outcomes that often are hierarchical in severity (e.g. any documented infection, symptomatic infection, hospitalization, death) and subsets of each other. Conditional effectiveness for a more severe outcome conditional on a less severe outcome is the protection offered against the severe outcome (e.g. death) among those who already sustained the less severe outcome (e.g. documented infection). The concept applies also to the protection offered by previous infection rather than vaccination. Formulas and a nomogram are provided here for calculating conditional effectiveness. Illustrative examples are presented from recent vaccine effectiveness studies, including situations where effectiveness for different outcomes changed at different pace over time. E(death | documented infection) is the percent decrease in the case fatality rate and E(death | infection) is the percent decrease in the infection fatality rate (IFR). Conditional effectiveness depends on many factors and should not be misinterpreted as a causal effect estimate. However, it may be used for better personalized communication of the benefits of vaccination, considering also IFR and epidemic activity in public health decision-making and communication.
    MeSH term(s) COVID-19/epidemiology ; COVID-19/prevention & control ; Epidemics ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Vaccination ; Vaccine Efficacy
    Language English
    Publishing date 2022-09-26
    Publishing country Netherlands
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 632614-6
    ISSN 1573-7284 ; 0393-2990
    ISSN (online) 1573-7284
    ISSN 0393-2990
    DOI 10.1007/s10654-022-00911-3
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  8. Article ; Online: Systematic reviews for basic scientists: a different beast.

    Ioannidis, John P A

    Physiological reviews

    2022  Volume 103, Issue 1, Page(s) 1–5

    Language English
    Publishing date 2022-09-01
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Editorial
    ZDB-ID 209902-0
    ISSN 1522-1210 ; 0031-9333
    ISSN (online) 1522-1210
    ISSN 0031-9333
    DOI 10.1152/physrev.00028.2022
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  9. Article ; Online: Reproducibility: Has Cancer Biology Failed beyond Repair?

    Ioannidis, John P A

    Clinical chemistry

    2022  Volume 68, Issue 8, Page(s) 1005–1007

    MeSH term(s) Biology ; Humans ; Neoplasms ; Reproducibility of Results
    Language English
    Publishing date 2022-03-05
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 80102-1
    ISSN 1530-8561 ; 0009-9147
    ISSN (online) 1530-8561
    ISSN 0009-9147
    DOI 10.1093/clinchem/hvac030
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  10. Article ; Online: Correction: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

    Ioannidis, John P A

    PLoS medicine

    2022  Volume 19, Issue 8, Page(s) e1004085

    Abstract: This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.]. ...

    Abstract [This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.].
    Language English
    Publishing date 2022-08-25
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Published Erratum
    ZDB-ID 2185925-5
    ISSN 1549-1676 ; 1549-1277
    ISSN (online) 1549-1676
    ISSN 1549-1277
    DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004085
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

To top