Journal article
In search of justification for the unpredictability paradox
- Abstract:
-
A 2011 Cochrane Review found that adequately randomized trials sometimes revealed larger, sometimes smaller, and often similar effect sizes to inadequately randomized trials. However, they found no average statistically significant difference in effect sizes between the two study types. Yet instead of concluding that adequate randomization had no effect the review authors postulated the “unpredictability paradox”, which states that randomized and non-randomized studies differ, but in an unpre...
Expand abstract
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Authors
Bibliographic Details
- Publisher:
- BioMed Central Publisher's website
- Journal:
- Trials Journal website
- Volume:
- 15
- Issue:
- 1
- Pages:
- 480
- Publication date:
- 2014-01-01
- Acceptance date:
- 2014-11-24
- DOI:
- EISSN:
-
1745-6215
- Pmid:
-
25490908
- Source identifiers:
-
493496
Item Description
- Language:
- English
- Keywords:
- Pubs id:
-
pubs:493496
- UUID:
-
uuid:575aa1ab-090a-487b-94af-2b339cae7dd5
- Local pid:
- pubs:493496
- Deposit date:
- 2016-12-19
Terms of use
- Copyright holder:
- Howick and Mebius
- Copyright date:
- 2014
- Notes:
- © Howick and Mebius; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record