ArticleTranslational stroke research2018
Data Standardization and Quality Management.
Article in Translational stroke research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Developing a systematic approach to assessing data quality in secondary use of clinical data based on intended use.Learning health systems · 2022Article
- Experimental Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Tiding Over.Translational stroke research · 2020Article
- Translational Stroke Research Guideline Projections: The 20/20 Standards.Translational stroke research · 2018Article
- Reframing the Biological Basis of Neuroprotection Using Functional Genomics: Differentially Weighted, Time-Dependent Multifactor Pathogenesis of Human Ischemic Brain Damage.Frontiers in neurology · 2018Article
- "Real world survey" of hydrogen-controlled cancer: a follow-up report of 82 advanced cancer patients.Medical gas researchArticle
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
Important questions regarding the conduct of scientific research and data transparency have been raised in various scientific forums over the last 10 years. It is becoming clear, that in spite of published RIGOR guidelines, that improvement in the transparency of scientific research is required to focus on the discovery and drug development process so that a treatment can be provided to stroke patients. We have the unique privilege of conducting research using animal models of a disease so that we can address the development of a new therapy, and we should do this with great care and vigilance. This document identifies valuable resources for researchers to become Good Laboratory Practices compliant and increase and improve data transparency and provides guidelines for accurate data management to continue to propel the translational stroke research field forward while recognizing that there is a shortage of research funds worldwide. While data audits are being considered worldwide by funding agencies and they are used extensively by industry, they are still quite controversial for basic researchers. Due to the special exploratory nature of basic and translational science research, the current challenging funding environment, and independent and individualized laboratory activities, it is debatable if current individualized non-standardized data management and monitoring represents the best approach. Thus, herein, we propose steps to prepare research study data in an acceptable form for archival purposes so that standards for translational research data can be comparable to those that are accepted and adhered to by the clinical community. If all translational research laboratories follow and institute the guidelines while conducting translational research, data from all sources may be more comparable and reliable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28283966What 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.