Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.11613/BM.2017.030201 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.11613/BM.2017.030201 C5696751!5696751!29180912     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Biochem+Med+(Zagreb) 2017 ; 27 (3): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=29180912|t=2017. Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results |pdf=|usr=}}{{29180912}} gab.com Text Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results JO: Biochem Med (Zagreb) http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29180912 #FOAvip Studies with positive results are greatly more represented in literature than studies with negative results, producing so-called publication bias. This review aims to discuss occurring problems around negative results and to emphasize the importance of reporting negative results. Underreporting of negative results introduces bias into meta-analysis, which consequently misinforms researchers, doctors and policymakers. More resources are potentially wasted on already disputed research that remains unpublished and therefore unavailable to the scientific community. Ethical obligations need to be considered when reporting results of studies on human subjects as people have exposed themselves to risk with the assurance that the study is performed to benefit others. Some studies disprove the common conception that journal editors preferably publish positive findings, which are considered as more citable. Therefore, all stakeholders, but especially researchers, need to be conscious of disseminating negative and positive findings alike. Twit Text FOAVip Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results ????Biochem Med (Zagreb) http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29180912 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29180912 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|29180912}}</ref> Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results #MMPMID29180912 Mlinari? A; Horvat M; ?upak Smol?i? V Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2017[Oct]; 27 (3): ä PMID29180912show ga Studies with positive results are greatly more represented in literature than studies with negative results, producing so-called publication bias. This review aims to discuss occurring problems around negative results and to emphasize the importance of reporting negative results. Underreporting of negative results introduces bias into meta-analysis, which consequently misinforms researchers, doctors and policymakers. More resources are potentially wasted on already disputed research that remains unpublished and therefore unavailable to the scientific community. Ethical obligations need to be considered when reporting results of studies on human subjects as people have exposed themselves to risk with the assurance that the study is performed to benefit others. Some studies disprove the common conception that journal editors preferably publish positive findings, which are considered as more citable. Therefore, all stakeholders, but especially researchers, need to be conscious of disseminating negative and positive findings alike. äDealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publ(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing