ArticleThe Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume2015
How do you know it is true? Integrity in research and publications: AOA critical issues.
Article in The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disciplinary Imbalances in Urology and Gynecology Research Publications within Functional Urology.Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- Scientific Integrity Principles and Best Practices: Recommendations from a Scientific Integrity Consortium.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
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
High-quality medical care is the result of clinical decisions based upon scientific principles garnered from basic, translational, and clinical research. Information regarding the natural history of diseases and their responses to various treatments is introduced into the medical literature through the approximately one million PubMed journal articles published each year. Pharmaceutical and device companies, universities, departments, and researchers all stand to gain from research publication. Basic and translational research is highly competitive. Success in obtaining research funding and career advancement requires scientific publication in the medical literature. Clinical research findings can lead to changes in the pattern of orthopaedic practice and have implications for the utilization of pharmaceuticals and orthopaedic devices. Research findings can be biased by ownership of patents and materials, funding sources, and consulting arrangements. The current high-stakes research environment has been characterized by an increase in plagiarism, falsification or manipulation of data, selected presentation of results, research bias, and inappropriate statistical analyses. It is the responsibility of the orthopaedic community to work collaboratively with industry, universities, departments, and medical researchers and educators to ensure the integrity of the content of the orthopaedic literature and to enable the incorporation of best practices in the care of orthopaedic patients.
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.