ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2012
Discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies- the need for more transparency.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is there a limit to limitations? A proposal for structured limitations reporting in scientific manuscripts.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- A Practical Framework to Design Immunization Studies Based on the Beta Distribution.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Factors enhancing implementation of occupational safety and health management systems in manufacturing industry of Mutare, Zimbabwe.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Ampullaviruses: From Extreme Environments to Biotechnological Innovation.Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2025Review
- Automatic categorization of self-acknowledged limitations in randomized controlled trial publications.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
- Development, explanation, and presentation of the Physical Literacy Interventions Reporting Template (PLIRT).The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023Article
- The standards of reporting trials in pets (PetSORT): Explanation and elaboration.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Biomarkers associated with periodontitis and peri-implantitis: a systematic review.Journal of periodontal & implant science · 2021Review
- Article
- Updating the AIHTS Trapping Standards to Improve Animal Welfare and Capture Efficiency and Selectivity.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Review
- Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0.PLoS biology · 2020Article
- Limited by our limitations.Perspectives on medical education · 2019Article
- Independent discussion sections for improving inferential reproducibility in published research.British journal of anaesthesia · 2019Article
- Opioid-induced constipation in patients with chronic noncancer pain in the USA, Canada, Germany, and the UK: descriptive analysis of baseline patient-reported outcomes and retrospective chart review.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2014Article
- All that glitters isn't gold: a survey on acknowledgment of limitations in biomedical studies.PloS one · 2013Article
- Standard of reporting animal-based experimental research in Indian Journal of Pharmacology.Indian journal of pharmacologyArticle
- Limitations in Medical Research: Recognition, Influence, and Warning.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unbiased and frank discussion of study limitations by authors represents a crucial part of the scientific discourse and progress. In today's culture of publishing many authors or scientific teams probably balance 'utter honesty' when discussing limitations of their research with the risk of being unable to publish their work. Currently, too few papers in the medical literature frankly discuss how limitations could have affected the study findings and interpretations. The goals of this commentary are to review how limitations are currently acknowledged in the medical literature, to discuss the implications of limitations in biomedical studies, and to make suggestions as to how to openly discuss limitations for scientists submitting their papers to journals. This commentary was developed through discussion and logical arguments by the authors who are doing research in the area of hedging (use of language to express uncertainty) and who have extensive experience as authors and editors of biomedical papers. We strongly encourage authors to report on all potentially important limitations that may have affected the quality and interpretation of the evidence being presented. This will not only benefit science but also offers incentives for authors: If not all important limitations are acknowledged readers and reviewers of scientific articles may perceive that the authors were unaware of them. Authors should take advantage of their content knowledge and familiarity with the study to prevent misinterpretations of the limitations by reviewers and readers. Articles discussing limitations help shape the future research agenda and are likely to be cited because they have informed the design and conduct of future studies. Instead of perceiving acknowledgment of limitations negatively, authors, reviewers and editors should recognize the potential of a frank and unbiased discussion of study limitations that should not jeopardize acceptance of manuscripts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.