Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28801996›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology2017

Updating the guidelines for data transparency in the British Journal of Pharmacology - data sharing and the use of scatter plots instead of bar charts.

Christopher H George, S Clare Stanford, Steve Alexander, Giuseppe Cirino, James R Docherty, Mark A Giembycz, Daniel Hoyer, Paul A Insel, Angelo A Izzo, Yong Ji and 4 more

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Quantum Health AcceleratorBrain sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Intraperitoneal Lavage withOxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Lasting effects of repeated ∆British journal of pharmacology · 2020
    Article
  18. The BJP expects authors to share data.British journal of pharmacology · 2019
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

14 authors.

Christopher H GeorgeBritish Journal of Pharmacology, London, UK.
S Clare StanfordBritish Journal of Pharmacology, London, UK.
Steve AlexanderBritish Journal of Pharmacology, London, UK.
Giuseppe CirinoBritish Journal of Pharmacology, London, UK.
James R DochertyBritish Journal of Pharmacology, London, UK.
Mark A GiembyczBritish Journal of Pharmacology, London, UK.
Daniel HoyerBritish Journal of Pharmacology, London, UK.
Paul A InselBritish Journal of Pharmacology, London, UK.
Angelo A IzzoBritish Journal of Pharmacology, London, UK.
Yong JiBritish Journal of Pharmacology, London, UK.
David J MacEwanBritish Journal of Pharmacology, London, UK.
Christopher G SobeyBritish Journal of Pharmacology, London, UK.
Sue WonnacottBritish Journal of Pharmacology, London, UK.
Amrita AhluwaliaBritish Journal of Pharmacology, London, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/09/028/27602
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicInformation DisseminationPeriodicals as TopicResearch DesignAnimalsDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID28801996
PMCPMC5554317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.