Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:44:27.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Being influential or being misleading? Citation bias in psychiatric research and practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2018

A. Fiorillo ,
M. Luciano  and
G. Sampogna
A. Fiorillo*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Campania ‘Luigi Vanvitelli’, Naples, Italy
M. Luciano
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Campania ‘Luigi Vanvitelli’, Naples, Italy
G. Sampogna
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Campania ‘Luigi Vanvitelli’, Naples, Italy
*
*Address for correspondence: Department of Psychiatry, University of Campania ‘Luigi Vanvitelli’, Naples, Italy. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentary to Special Article
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , June 2018 , pp. 242 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cristea, IA, Naudet, F (2017). Defending psychiatry or defending the trivial effects of therapeutic interventions? A citation content analysis of an influential paper. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences. doi: 10.1017/S2045796017000750.Google Scholar
Depp, C, Lebowitz, BD (2007). Clinical trials: bridging the gap between efficacy and effectiveness. International Review of Psychiatry 19, 531–539.Google Scholar
Fiorillo, A, Del Vecchio, V, Luciano, M, Sampogna, G, De Rosa, C, Malangone, C, Volpe, U, Bardicchia, F, Ciampini, G, Crocamo, C, Iapichino, S, Lampis, D, Moroni, A, Orlandi, E, Piselli, M, Pompili, E, Veltro, F, Carrà, G, Maj, M (2015). Efficacy of psychoeducational family intervention for bipolar I disorder: a controlled, multicentric, real-world study. Journal of Affective Disorders 172, 291–299.Google Scholar
Greenberg, SA (2009). How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. BMJ 20, b2680.Google Scholar
Jergas, H, Baethge, C (2015). Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles-a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ 3, e1364.Google Scholar
Leucht, S, Hierl, S, Kissling, W, Dold, M, Davis, JM (2012). Putting the efficacy of psychiatric and general medicine medication into perspective: review of meta-analyses. British Journal of Psychiatry 200, 97–106.Google Scholar
Maj, M (2016). The need for a conceptual framework in psychiatry acknowledging complexity while avoiding defeatism. World Psychiatry 15, 1–2.Google Scholar
Mogull, SA (2017). Accuracy of cited ‘facts’ in medical research articles: a review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate. PLoS ONE 12, e0184727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Resch, KI, Ernst, E, Garrow, J (2000). A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 93, 164–167.Google Scholar
Tatsioni, A, Bonitsis, NG, Ioannidis, JP (2007). Persistence of contradicted claims in the literature. JAMA 298, 2517–2526.Google Scholar