Cited by 19Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Publishing and Open AccessAcademic Writing and Publishing

METHODOLOGISTS AND THEIR METHODS: Do Methodologists Write Up Their Conference Presentations or Is It Just 15 Minutes of Fame?

Hopewell, Sally, Clarke, Mike·2001·International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which abstracts of methodological research, initially presented at meetings on systematic reviews, have gone on to be published as full articles. METHODS: Full publication was assessed in three ways: a search was carried out of The Cochrane Library; a search was conducted using MEDLINE; and a questionnaire was sent to the contact author of each abstract. RESULTS: Approximately half of the abstracts had not been, or were unlikely ever to be, published in full. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of full publication of abstracts related to the methodology of systematic reviews seems similar to that for randomized trials.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0266462301107142

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hopewell, S., & Clarke, M.
Affiliations
Cochrane (GB)
Venue
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Published
2001-10
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
601-603
ISSN
  • 0266-4623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-6348
OpenAlex
W56180981
Cited by
19
References
2
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
publication rates, abstracts, methodological research, systematic reviews, research methodology, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE
MeSH terms
Abstracting and Indexing, Congresses as Topic, United Kingdom, Health Services Research, Humans, Research Design, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Publication Bias, Evidence-Based Medicine

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