| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Schweinsberg, Martin, et al.
(författare)
-
Same data, different conclusions : Radical dispersion in empirical results when independent analysts operationalize and test the same hypothesis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. - : Elsevier BV. - 0749-5978 .- 1095-9920. ; 165, s. 228-249
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this crowdsourced initiative, independent analysts used the same dataset to test two hypotheses regarding the effects of scientists' gender and professional status on verbosity during group meetings. Not only the analytic approach but also the operationalizations of key variables were left unconstrained and up to individual analysts. For instance, analysts could choose to operationalize status as job title, institutional ranking, citation counts, or some combination. To maximize transparency regarding the process by which analytic choices are made, the analysts used a platform we developed called DataExplained to justify both preferred and rejected analytic paths in real time. Analyses lacking sufficient detail, reproducible code, or with statistical errors were excluded, resulting in 29 analyses in the final sample. Researchers reported radically different analyses and dispersed empirical outcomes, in a number of cases obtaining significant effects in opposite directions for the same research question. A Boba multiverse analysis demonstrates that decisions about how to operationalize variables explain variability in outcomes above and beyond statistical choices (e.g., covariates). Subjective researcher decisions play a critical role in driving the reported empirical results, underscoring the need for open data, systematic robustness checks, and transparency regarding both analytic paths taken and not taken. Implications for orga-nizations and leaders, whose decision making relies in part on scientific findings, consulting reports, and internal analyses by data scientists, are discussed.
|
|
| 3. |
- Lakens, Daniel, et al.
(författare)
-
Justify your alpha
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Nature Human Behaviour. - : Nature Publishing Group. - 2397-3374. ; 2:3, s. 168-171
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In response to recommendations to redefine statistical significance to P ≤ 0.005, we propose that researchers should transparently report and justify all choices they make when designing a study, including the alpha level.
|
|
| 4. |
- Anderson, Christopher J., et al.
(författare)
-
Response to Comment on "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science"
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 0036-8075 .- 1095-9203. ; 351:6277
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Gilbert et al. conclude that evidence from the Open Science Collaboration's Reproducibility Project: Psychology indicates high reproducibility, given the study methodology. Their very optimistic assessment is limited by statistical misconceptions and by causal inferences from selectively interpreted, correlational data. Using the Reproducibility Project: Psychology data, both optimistic and pessimistic conclusions about reproducibility are possible, and neither are yet warranted.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Metra, Marco, et al.
(författare)
-
y Effects of Serelaxin in Patients with Acute Heart Failure
- 2019
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - : MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 381:8, s. 716-726
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundSerelaxin is a recombinant form of human relaxin-2, a vasodilator hormone that contributes to cardiovascular and renal adaptations during pregnancy. Previous studies have suggested that treatment with serelaxin may result in relief of symptoms and in better outcomes in patients with acute heart failure. MethodsIn this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial, we enrolled patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure and had dyspnea, vascular congestion on chest radiography, increased plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides, mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency, and a systolic blood pressure of at least 125 mm Hg, and we randomly assigned them within 16 hours after presentation to receive either a 48-hour intravenous infusion of serelaxin (30 mu g per kilogram of body weight per day) or placebo, in addition to standard care. The two primary end points were death from cardiovascular causes at 180 days and worsening heart failure at 5 days.ResultsA total of 6545 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At day 180, death from cardiovascular causes had occurred in 285 of the 3274 patients (8.7%) in the serelaxin group and in 290 of the 3271 patients (8.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.15; P=0.77). At day 5, worsening heart failure had occurred in 227 patients (6.9%) in the serelaxin group and in 252 (7.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.07; P=0.19). There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of death from any cause at 180 days, the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or rehospitalization for heart failure or renal failure at 180 days, or the length of the index hospital stay. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups.ConclusionsIn this trial involving patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure, an infusion of serelaxin did not result in a lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes at 180 days or worsening heart failure at 5 days than placebo. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; RELAX-AHF-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01870778.) In a randomized trial, 6545 patients with acute heart failure were assigned to either serelaxin or placebo in addition to standard care. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes at 180 days or worsening heart failure at 5 days.
|
|
| 7. |
- van Assen, S., et al.
(författare)
-
EULAR recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 70:3, s. 414-422
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives To develop evidence-based European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for vaccination in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD). Methods A EULAR task force was composed of experts representing 11 European countries, consisting of eight rheumatologists, four clinical immunologists, one rheumatologist/clinical immunologist, one infectious disease physician, one nephrologist, one paediatrician/rheumatologist and one clinical epidemiologist. Key questions were formulated and the eligible spectrum of AIIRD, immunosuppressive drugs and vaccines were defined in order to perform a systematic literature review. A search was made of Medline from 1966 to October 2009 as well as abstracts from the EULAR meetings of 2008 and 2009 and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) meetings of 2007 and 2008. Evidence was graded in categories I-IV, the strength of recommendations was graded in categories A-D and Delphi voting was applied to determine the level of agreement between the experts of the task force. Results Eight key questions and 13 recommendations addressing vaccination in patients with AIIRD were formulated. The strength of each recommendation was determined. Delphi voting revealed a very high level of agreement with the recommendations among the experts of the task force. Finally, a research agenda was proposed. Conclusion Recommendations for vaccination in patients with AIIRD based on the currently available evidence and expert opinion were formulated. More research is needed, particularly regarding the incidence of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases and the safety of vaccination in patients with AIIRD.
|
|
| 8. |
- van Assen, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Vaccination in adult patients with auto-immune inflammatory rheumatic diseases: A systematic literature review for the European League Against Rheumatism evidence-based recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with auto-immune inflammatory rheumatic diseases
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Autoimmunity Reviews. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-0183 .- 1568-9972. ; 10:6, s. 341-352
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To present the systematic literature review (SLR), which formed the basis for the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) evidence-based recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD). Methods: AIIRD, vaccines and immunomodulating drugs, as well as eight key questions were defined by the multidisciplinary expert committee commissioned by EULAR for developing the recommendations. A SLR was performed using MedLine through October 2009 and including data from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized trials, and observational studies, excluding case series with participants. Articles in English and regarding patients years of age, were eligible. Results: Several vaccine-preventable infections (VPI) occur more often in AIIRD-patients and most vaccines are efficacious in AIIRD-patients, even when treated with immunomodulating agents, except rituximab. There does not appear to be an increase in vaccination-related harms in vaccinated patients with AIIRD in comparison with unvaccinated patients with AIIRD. However, these studies are underpowered and therefore not conclusive. Conclusion: Based on the current evidence from the literature, recommendations for vaccination in patients with AIIRD were made. However, more research is needed in particular regarding incidence of VPI, harms of vaccination and the influence of (new and established) immunomodulating agents on vaccination efficacy. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
