Cargando…

Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature

BACKGROUND: Ghostwriting of industry-sponsored articles is unethical and is perceived to be common practice. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review how evidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting is reported in the medical literature. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE via PubMed 1966+, EMBASE 1966+, The Cochrane L...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Stretton, Serina
Formato:	Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:	English
Publicado:	BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:	Medical Publishing and Peer Review
Acceso en línea:	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4120312/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25023129 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004777

Ejemplares similares

Non-inferiority trials: are they inferior? A systematic review of reporting in major medical journals
por: Rehal, Sunita, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Reporting of data on participant ethnicity and socioeconomic status in high-impact medical journals: a targeted literature review
por: Buttery, Sara C, et al.
Publicado: (2022)

Are methodological quality and completeness of reporting associated with citation-based measures of publication impact? A secondary analysis of a systematic review of dementia biomarker studies
por: Mackinnon, Shona, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review
por: Shahzad, Rida, et al.
Publicado: (2022)

Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting
por: Kirkham, Jamie J, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis
por: Hays, Meredith, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Perception of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement of authors publishing reviews in nursing journals: a cross-sectional online survey
por: Tam, Wilson W S, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review
por: Lieb, Klaus, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study
por: Gattrell, William T, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Interpretation of CIs in clinical trials with non-significant results: systematic review and recommendations
por: Gewandter, Jennifer S, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus
por: Bassler, Dirk, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Guidance for reporting outcomes in clinical trials: scoping review protocol
por: Butcher, Nancy J, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Survey of quality and clarity of methods and results reporting in 1 year of intervention studies published in high-impact medical and psychiatric journals
por: Ravichandran, Caitlin, et al.
Publicado: (2022)

Reporting quality of abstracts of trials published in top five pain journals: a protocol for a systematic survey
por: Sriganesh, Kamath, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Quality of reporting of outcomes in trials of therapeutic interventions for pressure ulcers in adults: a protocol for a systematic survey
por: Miranda, Jessica Steffany, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research
por: Blanco, David, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review
por: Misra, Vaidehi, et al.
Publicado: (2021)

Minocycline for the treatment of mental health and neurological conditions: study protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis
por: Bortolasci, Chiara C, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

Peer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort study
por: van Lent, Marlies, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Cross-sectional study of the relationship between women’s representation among editors and peer reviewers in journals of the British Medical Journal Publishing Group
por: Pinho-Gomes, Ana-Catarina, et al.
Publicado: (2022)

Interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research: a scoping review protocol
por: Blanco, David, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research
por: Superchi, Cecilia, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

Assessment of the extent of unpublished studies in prognostic factor research: a systematic review of p53 immunohistochemistry in bladder cancer as an example
por: Sekula, Peggy, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Training patients to review scientific reports for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: an observational study
por: Ivlev, Ilya, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

What Should Be Done To Tackle Ghostwriting in the Medical Literature?
por: Gøtzsche, Peter C, et al.
Publicado: (2009)

Quantitative investigation of inappropriate regression model construction and the importance of medical statistics experts in observational medical research: a cross-sectional study
por: Nojima, Masanori, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

Plagiarism in research: a survey of African medical journals
por: Rohwer, Anke, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

Risk factors associated with contrast-associated acute kidney injury in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
por: Ye, Jiahao, et al.
Publicado: (2023)

Peer Reviewed Evaluation of Registered End-Points of Randomised Trials (the PRE-REPORT study): a stepped wedge, cluster-randomised trial
por: Jones, Christopher W, et al.
Publicado: (2022)

Haphazard reporting of deaths in clinical trials: a review of cases of ClinicalTrials.gov records and matched publications–a cross-sectional study
por: Earley, Amy, et al.
Publicado: (2013)

A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials
por: Chauvin, Anthony, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the PRE-REPORT study): protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial
por: Jones, Christopher W, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Scientific research output in orthopaedics from China and other top-ranking countries: a 10-year survey of the literature
por: Zou, Yuming, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study
por: Rowhani-Farid, Anisa, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Open access policies of leading medical journals: a cross-sectional study
por: Ellison, Tim S, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Conflict-of-interest disclosure at medical journals in Japan: a nationwide survey of the practices of journal secretariats
por: Kojima, Takako, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
por: Speich, Benjamin, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

Performance curves of medical researchers during their career: analysis of scientific production from a retrospective cohort
por: Duclos, Antoine, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

A scoping review protocol on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals
por: Glonti, Ketevan, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Primary outcome switching among drug trials with and without principal investigator financial ties to industry: a cross-sectional study
por: Jones, Christopher W, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

Cannot write session to /tmp/vufind_sessions/sess_6v0b56hh06rr15qpaq0tkp89mr