Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27483498›Full record

ReviewDisease models & mechanisms2016

Show and tell: disclosure and data sharing in experimental pathology.

Paul N Schofield, Jerrold M Ward, John P Sundberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Disease models & mechanisms, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Paul N SchofieldDepartment of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EG, UK The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME 04609, USA PNS12@cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5111-7263
Jerrold M WardGlobal VetPathology, Montgomery Village, MD 20886, USA.
John P SundbergThe Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME 04609, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reproducibility of data from experimental investigations using animal models is increasingly under scrutiny because of the potentially negative impact of poor reproducibility on the translation of basic research. Histopathology is a key tool in biomedical research, in particular for the phenotyping of animal models to provide insights into the pathobiology of diseases. Failure to disclose and share crucial histopathological experimental details compromises the validity of the review process and reliability of the conclusions. We discuss factors that affect the interpretation and validation of histopathology data in publications and the importance of making these data accessible to promote replicability in research.

Indexed as

DisclosureInformation DisseminationPathologyAnimalsDietHumansMicrobiotaMutationReproducibility of ResultsData sharingHistopathologyMousePeer reviewReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID27483498
PMCPMC4920154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.