ReviewNature reviews. Neurology2014
Bringing rigour to translational medicine.
Review in Nature reviews. Neurology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
63 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Biological research on mental pain, social pain and other pains not primarily felt in the body: methodological systematic review.The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science · 2025Pooled it
- Motor Rehabilitation Provides Modest Functional Benefits After Intracerebral Hemorrhage: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Translational Rehabilitation Studies.Translational stroke research · 2025Pooled it
- Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- Translational Intracerebral Hemorrhage Research: Has Current Neuroprotection Research ARRIVEd at a Standard for Experimental Design and Reporting?Translational stroke research · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Outcome heterogeneity and bias in acute experimental spinal cord injury: A meta-analysis.Neurology · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Where Have All the Rodents Gone? The Effects of Attrition in Experimental Research on Cancer and Stroke.PLoS biology · 2016Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Across the Drug Development Lifecycle.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Targeting the Biology of Aging in Cerebrovascular Disease: Inflammation, Metabolism, Senescence, and Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- T Cell Involvement in Neuroinflammation After Traumatic Brain Injury: Implications for Therapeutic Intervention.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2025Review
- Strengthening translational preclinical research through confirmatory multi-laboratory studies.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Intraperitoneal administration of NMDA-Subunit NR1-receptor antibodies does not improve long-term outcome in a murine MCAo-stroke model.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Analysis of animal-to-human translation shows that only 5% of animal-tested therapeutic interventions obtain regulatory approval for human applications.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Reducing the false discovery rate of preclinical animal research with Bayesian statistical decision criteria.Statistical methods in medical research · 2023Article
- A multi-lab experimental assessment reveals that replicability can be improved by using empirical estimates of genotype-by-lab interaction.PLoS biology · 2023Article
- Predictive validity in drug discovery: what it is, why it matters and how to improve it.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2022Review
- Could a phase model help to improve translational animal research?Animal models and experimental medicine · 2022Article
- Microglia and monocytes in inflammatory CNS disease: integrating phenotype and function.Acta neuropathologica · 2022Review
- What's Right and Wrong in Preclinical Science: A Matter of Principled Investigation.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
Abstract
Translational neuroscience is in the doldrums. The stroke research community was among the first to recognize that the motivations inherent in our system of research can cause investigators to take shortcuts, and can introduce bias and reduce generalizability, all of which leads ultimately to the recurrent failure of apparently useful drug candidates in clinical trials. Here, we review the evidence for these problems in stroke research, where they have been most studied, and in other translational research domains, which seem to be bedevilled by the same issues. We argue that better scientific training and simple changes to the way that we fund, assess and publish research findings could reduce wasted investment, speed drug development, and create a healthier research environment. For 'phase III' preclinical studies--that is, those studies that build the final justification for conducting a clinical trial--we argue for a need to apply the same attention to detail, experimental rigour and statistical power in our animal experiments as in the clinical trials themselves.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24247324What 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.