ReviewF1000Research2017
Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities.
Review in F1000Research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 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
56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Open Field Test as a Tool for Behaviour Analysis in Pigs: Recommendations for Set-Up Standardization - A Systematic Review.European surgical research. Europaische chirurgische Forschung. Recherches chirurgicales europeennes · 2023Pooled it
- Good clinical practice improves rigor and transparency: Lessons from the ACTIVE trial.Psychology and aging · 2022Trial
- Interpretations of reproducibility crisis in medical education research: a qualitative study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A quality framework for cryopreserved rodent disease models: INFRAFRONTIER quality principles in EMMA archiving and distribution.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025Review
- Automatic detection and extraction of key resources from tables in biomedical papers.BioData mining · 2025Article
- Do organisms need an impact factor? Citations of key biological resources including model organisms reveal usage patterns and impact.PloS one · 2025Article
- Automatic Detection and Extraction of Key Resources from Tables in Biomedical Papers.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Assessing and mitigating batch effects in large-scale omics studies.Genome biology · 2024Review
- Recent Technologies towards Diagnostic and Therapeutic Applications of Circulating Nucleic Acids in Colorectal Cancers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Do organisms need an impact factor? Citations of key biological resources including model organisms reveal usage patterns and impact.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Standardized In Vitro Models of Human Adipose Tissue Reveal Metabolic Flexibility in Brown Adipocyte Thermogenesis.Endocrinology · 2023Article
- Multicompartmental analysis of the murine pulmonary immune response by spectral flow cytometry.American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2023Article
- Optimizing anesthesia and delivery approaches for dosing into lungs of mice.American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2023Article
- Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency in Shared Research Resources: Follow-Up Survey and Recommendations for Improvements.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2022Article
- Establishing Institutional Scores With the Rigor and Transparency Index: Large-scale Analysis of Scientific Reporting Quality.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- INFRAFRONTIER quality principles in systemic phenotyping.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2022Review
- End-to-End provenance representation for the understandability and reproducibility of scientific experiments using a semantic approach.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2022Article
- Development of a Critical Appraisal Tool (AIMRDA) for the Peer-Review of Studies Assessing the Anticancer Activity of Natural Products: A Step towards Reproducibility.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022Article
- Article
- Meta-analysis on reporting practices as a source of heterogeneity in in vitro cancer research.BMJ open science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The preclinical research process is a cycle of idea generation, experimentation, and reporting of results. The biomedical research community relies on the reproducibility of published discoveries to create new lines of research and to translate research findings into therapeutic applications. Since 2012, when scientists from Amgen reported that they were able to reproduce only 6 of 53 "landmark" preclinical studies, the biomedical research community began discussing the scale of the reproducibility problem and developing initiatives to address critical challenges. Global Biological Standards Institute (GBSI) released the "Case for Standards" in 2013, one of the first comprehensive reports to address the rising concern of irreproducible biomedical research. Further attention was drawn to issues that limit scientific self-correction, including reporting and publication bias, underpowered studies, lack of open access to methods and data, and lack of clearly defined standards and guidelines in areas such as reagent validation. To evaluate the progress made towards reproducibility since 2013, GBSI identified and examined initiatives designed to advance quality and reproducibility. Through this process, we identified key roles for funders, journals, researchers and other stakeholders and recommended actions for future progress. This paper describes our findings and conclusions.
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.