English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

When patients seek medical care, they assume the treatment or advice they receive is based on a strong understanding of the human body and its processes. They also typically assume the care they receive is based on a strong understanding of the research literature pertaining to their well-being and any ailments for which they might seek care. However, publication bias and inadequate research transparency greatly threaten medical providers’ ability to practice evidence-based medicine in its truest form, and this in turn puts patients at unnecessary risk. The evidence of these issues existing is unequivocal. However, systematic reviews and other studies that present overviews of these issues – although certainly incredibly important in establishing the undeniable presence and pervasiveness of these issues – may inadvertently obfuscate the concreteness of these closely-related processes in action. Therefore, this article presents a “case series” of these detrimental issues in action in an effort to emphasize the tangibility of these issues and thereby help make their importance unmistakably clear.

Peering into the “rabbit hole” of publication bias and inadequate research transparency: Adding tangibility to the abstract