ArticleThe American journal of pathology2018
Enhancing Scientific Foundations to Ensure Reproducibility: A New Paradigm.
Article in The American journal of pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quantity and Reporting Quality of Kidney Research.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2019Pooled it
- Article
- Evidence for Endogenous Opioid Dependence Related to Latent Sensitization in a Rat Model of Chronic Inflammatory Pain.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Contextualising sex and gender research to improve women's health: An early- and mid-career researcher perspective.Frontiers in global women's health · 2022Article
- Persistent confusion in nutrition and obesity research about the validity of classic nonparametric tests in the presence of heteroscedasticity: evidence of the problem and valid alternatives.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2021Article
- Evidence of misuse of nonparametric tests in the presence of heteroscedasticity within obesity research.F1000Research · 2021Review
- Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in Mice Beneficially Alters Lung NK1R and Structural Protein Expression to Enhance Survival after Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infection.The American journal of pathology · 2019Article
- Premise for Standardized Sepsis Models.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2019Article
- Part II: Minimum Quality Threshold in Preclinical Sepsis Studies (MQTiPSS) for Types of Infections and Organ Dysfunction Endpoints.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2019Review
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
Abstract
Progress in science is dependent on a strong foundation of reliable results. The publish or perish paradigm in research, coupled with an increase in retracted articles from the peer-reviewed literature, is beginning to erode the trust of both the scientific community and the public. The NIH is combating errors by requiring investigators to follow new guidelines addressing scientific premise, experimental design, biological variables, and authentication of reagents. Herein, we discuss how implementation of NIH guidelines will help investigators proactively address pitfalls of experimental design and methods. Careful consideration of the variables contributing to reproducibility helps ensure robust results. The NIH, investigators, and journals must collaborate to ensure that quality science is funded, explored, and published.
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.