Data from: Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy

Evan Mayo-Wilson, Tianjing Li, Nicole Fusco, Lorenzo Bertizzolo, Joseph K. Canner, Terrie Cowley, Peter Doshi, Jeffrey Ehmsen, Gillian Gresham, Nan Guo, Jennifer A. Haythornthwaite, James Heyward, Hwanhee Hong, Diana Pham, Jennifer L. Payne, Lori Rosman, Elizabeth A. Stuart, Catalina Suarez-Cuervo, Elizabeth Tolbert, Claire Twose, Swaroop Vedula & Kay Dickersin
PLEASE NOTE, THESE DATA ARE ALSO REFERRED TO IN SUBSEQUENT PUBLICATIONS. PLEASE SEE http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.007 FOR MORE INFORMATION. Objectives The objective of this study was to determine whether disagreements among multiple data sources affect systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Study Design and Setting Eligible RCTs examined gabapentin for neuropathic pain and quetiapine for bipolar depression, reported in public (e.g., journal articles) and nonpublic sources (clinical study reports [CSRs] and individual participant data [IPD]). Results...
1 citation reported since publication in 2018.
142 views reported since publication in 2018.

These counts follow the COUNTER Code of Practice, meaning that Internet robots and repeats within a certain time frame are excluded.
What does this mean?
24 downloads reported since publication in 2018.

These counts follow the COUNTER Code of Practice, meaning that Internet robots and repeats within a certain time frame are excluded.
What does this mean?