🏆 Finalist — NIH Data Sharing Index (“S-Index”) Challenge
Pilot corpus: NIH-funded biomedical datasets. Any DOI can be scored on demand — network effects sharpen as coverage grows.

An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings

Clinical Trials(2007)10.1177/1740774507079441Source: DataRank Database

An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings is a research paper published in Clinical Trials (2007). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 1.00. It has been cited 783 times.

N/A
1.00DataRank · unranked

Scored on demand from live citation data

783 citations
Cite:

DataRank reads this dataset's downstream impact straight off the citation graph — no black box, no proprietary weighting. How is this computed?

›Methodology & internals
datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6· scope data_onlyMethodology
Pipeline:MetadataData-paper checkEnrichmentCitation networkScoring
Enrichment:Pending

FAIR Checklist

Context only (not used in score)
Findable (1/2)
  • Has DOI
Accessible (0/2)
    Interoperable (0/2)
      Reusable (0/3)

        FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.

        Run a calibrated FAIR evaluation for this paper →

        We only score data papers we can read in full — never from an abstract alone.

        DataRank Breakdown

        Base Score 100%Citation Network 0%

        Base Score Contribution

        1.00

        From this paper's citation signal

        Citation Network Contribution

        0

        Citation network not refreshed for this result

        This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.

        Learn more about DataRank methodology →

        Authors (2)

        Thomas A. TrikalinosORCID,John P. A. IoannidisORCID

        Related Papers (10)

        Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
        N/A
        1.4DataRank · unranked
        PLoS Medicine(2005)
        co-cited
        10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
        Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
        N/A
        1.6DataRank · unranked
        BMJ(1997)
        co-cited
        10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
        Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses
        N/A
        1.1DataRank · unranked
        BMJ(2007)
        co-cited
        10.1136/bmj.39343.408449.80
        The case of the misleading funnel plot
        N/A
        1.1DataRank · unranked
        BMJ(2006)
        co-cited
        10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597
        Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated
        N/A
        1.1DataRank · unranked
        Epidemiology(2008)
        co-cited
        10.1097/ede.0b013e31818131e7
        Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials
        N/A
        1.3DataRank · unranked
        BMJ(2011)
        co-cited
        10.1136/bmj.d4002
        The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey
        N/A
        1.0DataRank · unranked
        Canadian Medical Association Journal(2007)
        co-cited
        10.1503/cmaj.060410
        Meta-analysis in clinical trials
        N/A
        1.6DataRank · unranked
        Controlled Clinical Trials(1986)
        co-cited
        10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
        Selection in Reported Epidemiological Risks: An Empirical Assessment
        N/A
        3.7DataRank · unranked
        PLoS Medicine(2007)
        co-cited
        10.1371/journal.pmed.0040079
        Assessment of cumulative evidence on genetic associations: interim guidelines
        N/A
        0.946DataRank · unranked
        International Journal of Epidemiology(2007)
        co-cited
        10.1093/ije/dym159