Research misconduct: Britain's failure to act.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Fraud in scientific research - birth of the Concordat to uphold research integrity in the United Kingdom.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2014
   Article
2. The Stoke CNEP saga - did it need to take so long?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2010
   Article
3. The policing of science.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2004
   Article
4. Supporting whistleblowers in academic medicine: training and respecting the courage of professional conscience.Journal of medical ethics · 2004
   Article
5. Feudal lords of science and medicine.The Western journal of medicine · 2001
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as