ArticleLancet (London, England)2014
Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible 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 366 papers, 19 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
366 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials involving people with patellar dislocations.Bone & joint open · 2025Pooled it
- Nonregistration, Discontinuation, and Nonpublication of Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- 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
- 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
- The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Pooled it
- Knowledge translation concerns for the CONSORT-PRO extension reporting guidance: a review of reviews.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022Pooled it
- Reducing waste in collection of quality-of-life data through better reporting: a case study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022Pooled it
- Reporting quality of surgical randomised controlled trials in head and neck cancer: a systematic review.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Heterogeneity in outcome selection, definition and measurement in studies assessing the treatment of cryptoglandular anal fistula: findings from a systematic review.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Pooled it
- PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Guideline
- Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research.Nature communications · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Spin in Published Reports of Tinnitus Randomized Controlled Trials: Evidence of Overinterpretation of Results.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Pooled it
- Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Tinnitus Trials: Comparison of Trial Registries With Corresponding Publications.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Pooled it
- Development of a core outcome set for myelodysplastic syndromes - a Delphi study from the EUMDS Registry Group.British journal of haematology · 2020Pooled it
- Results of trials assessing transarterial chemoembolization for treating hepatocellular carcinoma are critically underreported.European radiology · 2020Pooled it
- Reporting quality of studies using machine learning models for medical diagnosis: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Review
306 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The methods and results of health research are documented in study protocols, full study reports (detailing all analyses), journal reports, and participant-level datasets. However, protocols, full study reports, and participant-level datasets are rarely available, and journal reports are available for only half of all studies and are plagued by selective reporting of methods and results. Furthermore, information provided in study protocols and reports varies in quality and is often incomplete. When full information about studies is inaccessible, billions of dollars in investment are wasted, bias is introduced, and research and care of patients are detrimentally affected. To help to improve this situation at a systemic level, three main actions are warranted. First, academic institutions and funders should reward investigators who fully disseminate their research protocols, reports, and participant-level datasets. Second, standards for the content of protocols and full study reports and for data sharing practices should be rigorously developed and adopted for all types of health research. Finally, journals, funders, sponsors, research ethics committees, regulators, and legislators should endorse and enforce policies supporting study registration and wide availability of journal reports, full study reports, and participant-level datasets.
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.