ArticleLancet (London, England)2014
Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research.
Article in Lancet (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 577 papers, 37 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
577 citing papers in PubMed, 37 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reporting Completeness of Usual Care Comparator Groups in Exercise-Based Trials for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Research Systematic Review.Musculoskeletal care · 2026Pooled it
- An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews of School-Based Nutrition Interventions to Determine Outcomes Used and Their Measurement Tools.Nutrition reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Outcome domains of patient-reported outcome measures used in randomised controlled trials for older adults with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review.Age and ageing · 2026Pooled it
- Safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors: A systematic review of disproportionality analysis studies.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Attention to principles of training and exercise prescription in systematic reviews of exercise for functional performance in older adults: an umbrella review.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Exit Meta-Analysis on the Effect of HIV on COVID-19 Mortality, Hospitalization, and ICU Admission.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Assessing the reporting quality of educational interventions in trials on caregiver education for children with developmental disabilities using the GREET checklist: a meta-research study.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- Prediction models for self-harm and suicide: a systematic review and critical appraisal.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Highlighting global inequities in health services quality research: a systematic review and quantitative evidence (2014-2023).Health research policy and systems · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of educational interventions in improving antimicrobial dispensing by community pharmacists: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Large Language Model Analysis of Reporting Quality of Randomized Clinical Trial Articles: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Methodological conduct and risk of bias in studies on prenatal birthweight prediction models using machine learning techniques: a systematic review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomized trials: a Korean translation.Ewha medical journal · 2025Guideline
- TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods: a Korean translation.Ewha medical journal · 2025Guideline
- Node-RADS: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance, category-wise malignancy rates, and inter-observer reliability.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Reporting of Noninferiority Margins on ClinicalTrials.gov: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Barriers and Enablers of Primary Healthcare Professionals in Health Research Engagement: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.Nursing & health sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Does drug dispensing influence patients' medication knowledge and medication adherence? A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of research co-design in health: a systematic overview of reviews and development of a framework.Implementation science : IS · 2024Pooled it
- Major mistakes or errors in the use of trial sequential analysis in systematic reviews or meta-analyses - the METSA systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Pooled it
517 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research publication can both communicate and miscommunicate. Unless research is adequately reported, the time and resources invested in the conduct of research is wasted. Reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STARD, PRISMA, and ARRIVE aim to improve the quality of research reports, but all are much less adopted and adhered to than they should be. Adequate reports of research should clearly describe which questions were addressed and why, what was done, what was shown, and what the findings mean. However, substantial failures occur in each of these elements. For example, studies of published trial reports showed that the poor description of interventions meant that 40-89% were non-replicable; comparisons of protocols with publications showed that most studies had at least one primary outcome changed, introduced, or omitted; and investigators of new trials rarely set their findings in the context of a systematic review, and cited a very small and biased selection of previous relevant trials. Although best documented in reports of controlled trials, inadequate reporting occurs in all types of studies-animal and other preclinical studies, diagnostic studies, epidemiological studies, clinical prediction research, surveys, and qualitative studies. In this report, and in the Series more generally, we point to a waste at all stages in medical research. Although a more nuanced understanding of the complex systems involved in the conduct, writing, and publication of research is desirable, some immediate action can be taken to improve the reporting of research. Evidence for some recommendations is clear: change the current system of research rewards and regulations to encourage better and more complete reporting, and fund the development and maintenance of infrastructure to support better reporting, linkage, and archiving of all elements of research. However, the high amount of waste also warrants future investment in the monitoring of and research into reporting of research, and active implementation of the findings to ensure that research reports better address the needs of the range of research users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24411647What 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.