“Independent” reanalysis of landmark starch solutions trial was published by original authors

Doshi, Peter

dc.contributor.author	Doshi, Peter
dc.date.accessioned	2017-07-27T16:43:04Z
dc.date.available	2017-07-27T16:43:04Z
dc.date.issued	2017-07-21
dc.identifier.citation	Doshi, P. (2017). "Independent" reanalysis of landmark starch solutions trial was published by original authors. BMJ, 358:j3552. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j3552	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10713/6914
dc.description	Is a reanalysis of clinical trial data truly independent if 6 of the 8 authors are associated with the organization that administered the original study? Moreover, 3 of the 6 are among the authors of the initial article, one of whom was the principal investigator. Peter Doshi discusses the Crystalloid versus Hydroxyethyl Starch Trial (CHEST), lack of data transparency, and concerns over the validity of the reanalysis
dc.description.uri	http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3552
dc.language.iso	en_US	en_US
dc.publisher	BMJ Publishing Group	en_US
dc.rights.uri	https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subject	data sharing	en_US
dc.subject	CHEST	en_US
dc.subject	Crystalloid versus Hydroxyethyl Starch Trial	en_US
dc.subject	independent reanalysis	en_US
dc.subject	research transparency	en_US
dc.subject	Voluven	en_US
dc.subject	George Institute for Global Health	en_US
dc.subject.lcsh	Duke Clinical Research Institute	en_US
dc.subject.lcsh	Fresenius Kabi	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Access to Information	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Clinical Trials as Topic	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Hydroxyethyl Starch Derivatives	en_US
dc.title	“Independent” reanalysis of landmark starch solutions trial was published by original authors	en_US
dc.type	Article	en_US
dc.identifier.doi	10.1136/bmj.j3552
dc.identifier.ispublished	No	en_US
dc.description.uriname	Click here for the free full-text article on publisher’s website
refterms.dateFOA	2019-02-19T18:29:54Z