ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2017
Guidelines for standardizing and increasing the transparency in the reporting of biomedical research.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sample size calculation practices in original research articles of the Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (2021-2025).Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Building a framework for reproducibility: the case for standardized data reporting and metadata integration in zebrafish research.Disease models & mechanisms · 2025Article
- The Maastricht Intensive Care COVID Cohort: A Critical Appraisal of the Predefined Research Questions.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- Linear regression reporting practices for health researchers, a cross-sectional meta-research study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Gut Microbiota-Derived Metabolites and Their Role in the Pathogenesis of Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Preterm Infants: A Narrative Review.Metabolites · 2024Review
- The status of bladder cancer research worldwide, a bibliometric review and recommendations.Arab journal of urology · 2023Article
- Human OMICs and Computational Biology Research in Africa: Current Challenges and Prospects.Omics : a journal of integrative biology · 2021Article
- Proposed minimum information guideline for kidney disease-research and clinical data reporting: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Statistical Guidance for Reviewers of Toxicologic Pathology.Toxicologic pathology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a lack of awareness about the guidelines for standardized and transparent reporting of biomedical research, among the medical professionals. This paper aims to familiarize the clinical researchers and practitioners regarding the issues related to transparency and the evolving guidelines for standardizing them, in the reporting of biomedical research. A narrative review method is adopted here, primarily based on the EQUATOR and SAMPL guidelines for reporting studies and statistical analyses. As study methods and statistical approaches support each other, their reporting practices as per the standardized guidelines have been dealt here in a congruous manner.
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.