The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Effect Sizes Associated With Biomarkers Reported in Highly Cited Individual Articles and in Subsequent Meta-analyses
Abstract
CONTEXT: Many biomarkers are proposed in highly cited studies as determinants of disease risk, prognosis, or response to treatment, but few eventually transform clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the magnitude of the effect sizes of biomarkers proposed in highly cited studies is accurate or overestimated. DATA SOURCES: We searched ISI Web of Science and MEDLINE until December 2010. STUDY SELECTION: We included biomarker studies that had a relative risk presented in their abstract. Eligible articles were those that had received more than 400 citations in the ISI Web of Science and that had been published in any of 24 highly cited biomedical journals. We also searched MEDLINE for subsequent meta-analyses on the same associations (same biomarker and same outcome). DATA EXTRACTION: In the highly cited studies, data extraction was focused on the disease/outcome, biomarker under study, and first reported relative risk in the abstract. From each meta-analysis, we extracted the overall relative risk and the relative risk in the largest study. Data extraction was performed independently by 2 investigators. RESULTS: We evaluated 35 highly cited associations. For 30 of the 35 (86%), the highly cited studies had a stronger effect estimate than the largest study; for 3 the largest study was also the highly cited study; and only twice was the effect size estimate stronger in the largest than in the highly cited study. For 29 of the 35 (83%) highly cited studies, the corresponding meta-analysis found a smaller effect estimate. Only 15 of the associations were nominally statistically significant based on the largest studies, and of those only 7 had a relative risk point estimate greater than 1.37. CONCLUSION: Highly cited biomarker studies often report larger effect estimates for postulated associations than are reported in subsequent meta-analyses evaluating the same associations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ridker, P. M., Hennekens, C. H., Buring, J. E., & Rifai, N. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200003233421202 · Cited by 5,850
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702
Self-citationPublication bias in clinical research
Easterbrook, P. J., Gopalan, R., Berlin, J. A., & Matthews, D. R. (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y · Cited by 3,109
Danesh, J., Wheeler, J. G., Hirschfield, G. M., Eda, S., Eiriksdottir, G., Rumley, A., Lowe, G. D. O., Pepys, M. B., & Gudnason, V. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa032804 · Cited by 2,953
Variant of transcription factor 7-like 2 (TCF7L2) gene confers risk of type 2 diabetes
Grant, S. F. A., Thorleifsson, G., Reynisdottir, I., Benediktsson, R., Manolescu, A., Sainz, J., Helgason, A., Stefansson, H., Emilsson, V., Helgadottir, A., et al. (2006) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1732 · Cited by 2,287
Replication of Genome-Wide Association Signals in UK Samples Reveals Risk Loci for Type 2 Diabetes
Zeggini, E., Weedon, M. N., Lindgren, C. M., Frayling, T. M., Elliott, K. S., Lango, H., Timpson, N. J., Perry, J. R. B., Rayner, N. W., Freathy, R. M., et al. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1142364 · Cited by 2,194
Hageman, G. S., Anderson, D. H., Johnson, L. V., Hancox, L. S., Taiber, A. J., Hardisty, L. I., Hageman, J. L., Stockman, H. A., Borchardt, J. D., Gehrs, K. M., et al. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0501536102 · Cited by 1,961
Risks of cancer in BRCA1-mutation carriers
FORD, D. (1994) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(94)91578-4 · Cited by 1,850
Low grade inflammation and coronary heart disease: prospective study and updated meta-analyses
Danesh, J. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7255.199 · Cited by 1,692
Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias
Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Arnaiz, J. A., Bloom, J., Chan, A.-W., Cronin, E., Decullier, E., Easterbrook, P. J., Von Elm, E., Gamble, C., et al. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003081 · Cited by 1,546
Self-citation
Cited by
2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk
Goff, D. C., Lloyd-Jones, D. M., Bennett, G., Coady, S., D’Agostino, R. B., Gibbons, R., Greenland, P., Lackland, D. T., Levy, D., O’Donnell, C. J., et al. (2014) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.005 · Cited by 4,945
Goff, D. C., Lloyd-Jones, D. M., Bennett, G., Coady, S., D’Agostino, R. B., Gibbons, R., Greenland, P., Lackland, D. T., Levy, D., O’Donnell, C. J., et al. (2014) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000437741.48606.98 · Cited by 3,697
Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M. A., Khoury, M. J., Macleod, M. R., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Tibshirani, R. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62227-8 · Cited by 1,597
Self-citationNosek (2012) · doi:10.1177/1745691612459058 · Cited by 1,301
Johnson, K. A., Minoshima, S., Bohnen, N. I., Donohoe, K. J., Foster, N. L., Herscovitch, P., Karlawish, J. H., Rowe, C. C., Carrillo, M. C., Hartley, D. M., et al. (2013) · Alzheimer's & Dementia · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2013.01.002 · Cited by 603
Metadata
- Authors
- Ioannidis, J. P. A.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2011-06-01
- Volume
- 305
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 2200
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2033285750
- Cited by
- 252
- References
- 17
- FWCI
- 41.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Effect Sizes Associated With Biomarkers Reported in Highly Cited Individual Articles and in Subsequent Meta-analyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2011.713
- The paper
- Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2011). Comparison of Effect Sizes Associated With Biomarkers Reported in Highly Cited Individual Articles and in Subsequent Meta-analyses. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.713
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
