Top ten errors of statistical analysis in observational studies for cancer research

Carmona-Bayonas, A; Jimenez-Fonseca, P; Fernández-Somoano, A; Álvarez-Manceñido, F; Castañón, E; Custodio, A; Peña, FA de la; Payo, RM; Valiente, LP.
Clin. transl. oncol. (Print) ; 20(8): 954-965, ago. 2018. tab
Artículo en Inglés | IBECS (España) | ID: ibc-173679

Documentos relacionados

  1. Scientists used ChatGPT to generate an entire paper from scratch - but is it any good?
  2. Structure peer review to make it more robust.
  3. How high-impact papers from Indian researchers are shaping science.
  4. Is science really getting less disruptive - and does it matter if it is?
  5. Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists.
  6. A systematic review of reporting quality for anaesthetic interventions in randomised controlled trials.
  7. 'Tortured phrases' give away fabricated research papers.
  8. Data sharing: putting Nature's policy to the test.
  9. What makes an undercover science sleuth tick? Fake-paper detective speaks out.
  10. Systematic Review on Characteristics and Reporting Quality of Animal Studies in Liver Regeneration Triggered by Portal Vein Occlusion and Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy: Adherence to the ARRIVE Guidelines.