ArticleBiomolecular detection and quantification2017
Reproducibility of biomedical research - The importance of editorial vigilance.
Article in Biomolecular detection and quantification, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Guidelines for experimental models of myocardial ischemia and infarction.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2018Guideline
- MIQE 2.0 and the Urgent Need to Rethink qPCR Standards.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Optimized bacterial absolute quantification method by qPCR using an exogenous bacterial culture as a normalization strategy in triple-species BV-like biofilms.Journal of microbiological methods · 2024Article
- Article
- Mathematical Modeling of Plasticity and Heterogeneity in EMT.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- The use of digital pathology and image analysis in clinical trials.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2019Article
- Priorities to Overcome Barriers Impacting Data Science Application in Emergency Care Research.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2019Article
- While it is not deliberate, much of today's biomedical research contains logical and technical flaws, showing a need for corrective action.International journal of medical sciences · 2018Review
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
Many journal editors are a failing to implement their own authors' instructions, resulting in the publication of many articles that do not meet basic standards of transparency, employ unsuitable data analysis methods and report overly optimistic conclusions. This problem is particularly acute where quantitative measurements are made and results in the publication of papers that lack scientific rigor and contributes to the concerns with regard to the reproducibility of biomedical research. This hampers research areas such as biomarker identification, as reproducing all but the most striking changes is challenging and translation to patient care rare.
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.