ArticlePacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing2017
METHODS TO ENSURE THE REPRODUCIBILITY OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH.
Article in Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Considerations for an integrated population health databank in Africa: lessons from global best practices.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- Assessment of the impact of EHR heterogeneity for clinical research through a case study of silent brain infarction.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Article
- What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review.Research integrity and peer review · 2017Review
- Data sharing considerations and practice among health researchers in Africa: A scoping review.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Science is not done in a vacuum - across fields of biomedicine, scientists have built on previous research and used data published in previous papers. A mainstay of scientific inquiry is the publication of one's research and recognition for this work is given in the form of citations and notoriety - ideally given in proportion to the quality of the work. Academic incentives, however, may encourage individual researchers to prioritize career ambitions over scientific truth. Recently, the New England Journal of Medicine published a commentary calling scientists who repurpose data "research parasites" who misuse data generated by others to demonstrate alternative hypotheses. In our opinion, the concept of data hoarding not only runs contrary to the spirit of, but also hinders scientific progress. Scientific research is meant to seek objective truth, rather than promote a personal agenda, and the only way to do so is through maximum transparency and reproducibility, no matter who is using the data….
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.