ArticleBiomolecular detection and quantification2016
Improving the reliability of peer-reviewed publications: We are all in it together.
Article in Biomolecular detection and quantification, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- REPCAN: Guideline for REporting Population-based CANcer Registry Data.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Guideline
- PCR-based analytics of gene therapies using adeno-associated virus vectors: Considerations for cGMP method development.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2023Review
- COVID-19 and Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR-Facts and Fallacies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Measurement accuracy and uncertainty in plant biomechanics.Journal of experimental botany · 2019Review
- Antibody validation: a view from the mountains.New biotechnology · 2018Review
- Screening of Chemopreventive Agents in Animal Models: Results on Reproducibility, Agents of a Given Class, and Agents Tested During Tumor Progression.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2018Review
- Improving the standardization of mRNA measurement by RT-qPCR.Biomolecular detection and quantification · 2018Article
- Article
- Approaches to Evaluate Lung Inflammation in Translational Research.Veterinary pathology · 2018Review
- qPCR primer design revisited.Biomolecular detection and quantification · 2017Review
- Droplet Digital PCR versus qPCR for gene expression analysis with low abundant targets: from variable nonsense to publication quality data.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Reproducibility of biomedical research - The importance of editorial vigilance.Biomolecular detection and quantification · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current, and welcome, focus on standardization of techniques and transparency of reporting in the biomedical, peer-reviewed literature is commendable. However, that focus has been intermittent as well as lacklustre and so failed to tackle the alarming lack of reliability and reproducibly of biomedical research. Authors have access to numerous recommendations, ranging from simple standards dealing with technical issues to those regulating clinical trials, suggesting that improved reporting guidelines are not the solution. The elemental solution is for editors to require meticulous implementation of their journals' instructions for authors and reviewers and stipulate that no paper is published without a transparent, complete and accurate materials and methods section.
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.