We should have seen this coming.

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. Raising the value of research studies in psychological science by increasing the credibility of research reports: the transparent Psi project.Royal Society open science · 2023
   Article
2. Driving with Intuition: A Preregistered Study about the EEG Anticipation of Simulated Random Car Accidents.PloS one · 2017
   Article
3. Investigating expectation effects using multiple physiological measures.Frontiers in psychology · 2015
   Article
4. Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events.F1000Research · 2015
   Article
5. Future directions in precognition research: more research can bridge the gap between skeptics and proponents.Frontiers in psychology · 2014
   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

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as