DAVID ALLISON to Research Design
This is a "connection" page, showing publications DAVID ALLISON has written about Research Design.
Connection Strength
9.171
-
Ambiguity in Statistical Analysis Methods and Nonconformity With Prespecified Commitment to Data Sharing in a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2024 Apr 03; 26:e54090.
Score: 0.684
-
From Model Organisms to Humans, the Opportunity for More Rigor in Methodologic and Statistical Analysis, Design, and Interpretation of Aging and Senescence Research. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2022 11 21; 77(11):2155-2164.
Score: 0.622
-
A practical decision tree to support editorial adjudication of submitted parallel cluster randomized controlled trials. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2022 03; 30(3):565-570.
Score: 0.591
-
Evaluation of the type I error rate when using parametric bootstrap analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial with binary outcomes and a small number of clusters. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2022 Mar; 215:106654.
Score: 0.587
-
Errors in the implementation, analysis, and reporting of randomization within obesity and nutrition research: a guide to their avoidance. Int J Obes (Lond). 2021 11; 45(11):2335-2346.
Score: 0.568
-
Data anomalies and apparent reporting errors in 'Randomized controlled trial testing weight loss and abdominal obesity outcomes of moxibustion'. Biomed Eng Online. 2020 Feb 18; 19(1):11.
Score: 0.514
-
Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: identifying and accounting for regression to the mean in nutrition and obesity research. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020 02 01; 111(2):256-265.
Score: 0.512
-
Trial Characteristics and Appropriateness of Statistical Methods Applied for Design and Analysis of Randomized School-Based Studies Addressing Weight-Related Issues: A Literature Review. J Obes. 2018; 2018:8767315.
Score: 0.458
-
Issues with data and analyses: Errors, underlying themes, and potential solutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 03 13; 115(11):2563-2570.
Score: 0.449
-
Scientific rigor and credibility in the nutrition research landscape. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018 03 01; 107(3):484-494.
Score: 0.448
-
Stated conclusion about industry funding is opposite to what the paper's data show: letter regarding 'Selective outcome reporting in obesity clinical trials: a cross-sectional review'. Clin Obes. 2017 12; 7(6):402.
Score: 0.433
-
Randomization to randomization probability: Estimating treatment effects under actual conditions of use. Psychol Methods. 2018 Jun; 23(2):337-350.
Score: 0.422
-
Common scientific and statistical errors in obesity research. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2016 Apr; 24(4):781-90.
Score: 0.392
-
Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. Nature. 2016 Feb 04; 530(7588):27-9.
Score: 0.388
-
Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: designing, analyzing, and reporting cluster randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015 Aug; 102(2):241-8.
Score: 0.370
-
Getting carried away: a note showing baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) results can be calculated from published complete-cases results. Int J Obes (Lond). 2012 Jun; 36(6):886-9.
Score: 0.277
-
Design, analysis, and interpretation of treatment response heterogeneity in personalized nutrition and obesity treatment research. Obes Rev. 2023 Dec; 24(12):e13635.
Score: 0.164
-
Toward more rigorous and informative nutritional epidemiology: The rational space between dismissal and defense of the status quo. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2023; 63(18):3150-3167.
Score: 0.144
-
Incorrect Analyses of Cluster-Randomized Trials that Do Not Take Clustering and Nesting into Account Likely Lead to p-Values that Are Too Small. Child Obes. 2020 03; 16(2):65-66.
Score: 0.129
-
Observational research rigour alone does not justify causal inference. Eur J Clin Invest. 2016 Dec; 46(12):985-993.
Score: 0.102
-
Regression to the Mean: A Commonly Overlooked and Misunderstood Factor Leading to Unjustified Conclusions in Pediatric Obesity Research. Child Obes. 2016 Apr; 12(2):155-8.
Score: 0.098
-
Introduction to the series "Best (but Oft-Forgotten) Practices". Am J Clin Nutr. 2015 Aug; 102(2):239-40.
Score: 0.093
-
Unscientific beliefs about scientific topics in nutrition. Adv Nutr. 2014 Sep; 5(5):563-5.
Score: 0.088
-
Overstatement of results in the nutrition and obesity peer-reviewed literature. Am J Prev Med. 2013 Nov; 45(5):615-21.
Score: 0.083
-
Association of run-in periods with weight loss in obesity randomized controlled trials. Obes Rev. 2014 Jan; 15(1):68-73.
Score: 0.082
-
Misuse of odds ratios in obesity literature: an empirical analysis of published studies. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2012 Aug; 20(8):1726-31.
Score: 0.074
-
Is funding source related to study reporting quality in obesity or nutrition randomized control trials in top-tier medical journals? Int J Obes (Lond). 2012 Jul; 36(7):977-81.
Score: 0.072
-
Rank-based inverse normal transformations are increasingly used, but are they merited? Behav Genet. 2009 Sep; 39(5):580-95.
Score: 0.061
-
Testing for differences in distribution tails to test for differences in 'maximum' lifespan. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Jul 25; 8:49.
Score: 0.058
-
Obesity--still highly heritable after all these years. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Feb; 87(2):275-6.
Score: 0.056
-
Optimal allocation of replicates for measurement evaluation studies. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics. 2006 Aug; 4(3):196-202.
Score: 0.050
-
The PowerAtlas: a power and sample size atlas for microarray experimental design and research. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006 Feb 22; 7:84.
Score: 0.049
-
A design and statistical perspective on microarray gene expression studies in nutrition: the need for playful creativity and scientific hard-mindedness. Nutrition. 2003 Nov-Dec; 19(11-12):997-1000.
Score: 0.041
-
Catechol-O-methyl-transferase functional polymorphism and nicotine dependence: an evaluation of nonreplicated results. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Jun; 14(6):1384-9.
Score: 0.012