EssayRedundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity of medical research
References (30)
- et al.
Risperidone versus clozapine in the treatment of schizophrenic patients with acute symptoms: a double blind randomized trial
Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry
(1994) - et al.
A fixed-dose, parallel group study of risperidone vs haloperidol vs placebo
Schizophr Res
(1993) - et al.
Meta-analysis and multiple publication of clinical trial reports
Lancet
(1992) Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis
Contr Clin Trials
(1989)Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication
Ann Intern Med
(1986)- et al.
Redundant publication: a reminder
N Engl J Med
(1995) - et al.
Randomized, double-blind controlled trial of risperidone versus clozapine in patients with chronic schizophrenia
J Clin Psychopharmacol
(1995) Risperidone: clinical development: North American results
Clin Neuropharmacol
(1992)- et al.
A Canadian multicentre placebo-controlled study of fixed doses of risperidone and haloperidol in the treatment of chronic schizophrenic patients
J Clin Psychopharmacol
(1993) - et al.
Risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia
Am J Psychiatry
(1994)
Efficacy of risperidone on positive features of schizophrenia
J Clin Psychiatry
Risperidone
Pharmacotherapy
Risperidone versus zuclopenthixol in the treatment of acute schizophrenic episodes: a double-blind parallel-group trial
Acta Psychiatr Scand
Cited by (147)
Twenty percent of secondary publications of randomized controlled trials of drugs did not provide new results relative to the primary publication
2020, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :A study of duplicate publications of RCTs in the field of perioperative medicine (anesthesia, analgesia, and critical care) identified six different patterns of secondary publications based on the analysis of the samples and outcomes reported [7]. Some experts consider that secondary publications constitute a waste of time for stakeholders in medical research, publishers, and authors of systematic reviews and prevent readers from obtaining a clear view of a trial's results [1,8]. Secondary publications also mean that the same data set may be included several times in a systematic review or meta-analysis, which means that a study may have a too important weight (being considered several times), thus invalidating the estimated pooled effect size [1,9].
Criteria for the evidence-based categorisation of skin sensitisers
2017, Food and Chemical ToxicologyCitation Excerpt :In general, scientific reviews, letters to the editors without data presentation or duplicate publications should be excluded, except possibly for the discussion of the classification result. The observational unit of a systematic review is clearly a study, and not a publication: Occasionally there may be several publications providing important observations based on a single study, which thus all need to be considered, but avoiding numerical multiplication (Huston and Moher, 1996). However, particularly regarding experimental studies, important data may not be publicly available.
On Recycling Our Own Work in the Digital Age
2024, Springer International Handbooks of EducationTrust but verify: An analysis of redundant publications from two major psychiatry journals in India
2022, Indian Journal of PsychiatryPsychiatry: From Its Historical and Philosophical Roots to the Modern Face
2021, Psychiatry: From Its Historical and Philosophical Roots to the Modern Face