ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017
Repeat: a framework to assess empirical reproducibility in biomedical research.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpretations of reproducibility crisis in medical education research: a qualitative study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A scoping review on metrics to quantify reproducibility: a multitude of questions leads to a multitude of metrics.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Study protocol of sustaining home palliative care for patients with Heart Failure (HF) and their family caregivers in rural Appalachia: a mixed methods randomized clinical trial.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Perspective review: Will generative AI make common data models obsolete in future analyses of distributed data networks?Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2025Review
- Clinical Research Informatics: a Decade-in-Review.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018.BMC urology · 2022Review
- The Implication of Latent Information Quality to the Reproducibility of Secondary Use of Electronic Health Records.Studies in health technology and informatics · 2022Article
- Evaluating Reproducibility and Transparency in Emergency Medicine Publications.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2021Article
- Can reproducibility be improved in clinical natural language processing? A study of 7 clinical NLP suites.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- RipetaScore: Measuring the Quality, Transparency, and Trustworthiness of a Scientific Work.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
- Building Cancer Diagnosis Text to OncoTree Mapping Pipelines for Clinical Sequencing Data Integration and Curation.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2020Article
- Adherence to reporting guidelines increases the number of citations: the argument for including a methodologist in the editorial process and peer-review.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Reliability and Repeatability of the Speech Cue Profile.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2018Article
- Clinical Research Informatics: Contributions from 2017.Yearbook of medical informatics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe reproducibility of research is essential to rigorous science, yet significant concerns of the reliability and verifiability of biomedical research have been recently highlighted. Ongoing efforts across several domains of science and policy are working to clarify the fundamental characteristics of reproducibility and to enhance the transparency and accessibility of research.
methodsThe aim of the proceeding work is to develop an assessment tool operationalizing key concepts of research transparency in the biomedical domain, specifically for secondary biomedical data research using electronic health record data. The tool (RepeAT) was developed through a multi-phase process that involved coding and extracting recommendations and practices for improving reproducibility from publications and reports across the biomedical and statistical sciences, field testing the instrument, and refining variables.
resultsRepeAT includes 119 unique variables grouped into five categories (research design and aim, database and data collection methods, data mining and data cleaning, data analysis, data sharing and documentation). Preliminary results in manually processing 40 scientific manuscripts indicate components of the proposed framework with strong inter-rater reliability, as well as directions for further research and refinement of RepeAT.
conclusionsThe use of RepeAT may allow the biomedical community to have a better understanding of the current practices of research transparency and accessibility among principal investigators. Common adoption of RepeAT may improve reporting of research practices and the availability of research outputs. Additionally, use of RepeAT will facilitate comparisons of research transparency and accessibility across domains and institutions.
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.