ReviewProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018
Standards for design and measurement would make clinical research reproducible and usable.
Review in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Enhancing the quality of evidence, comparability, and reproducibility in brain arteriovenous malformations treated with open surgery research: a systematic review and proposal of a reporting guideline for surgical and clinical outcomes.Neurosurgical review · 2024Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of the Implementation and Effectiveness of 'The Daily Mile' on Markers of Children's Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Risk stratification in diabetic kidney disease: a review of prediction models for methodological advances and clinical application.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Benchmarking Transformer Embedding Models for Biomedical Terminology Standardization.Machine learning with applications · 2025Article
- Standardization to Characterize the Complexity of Vessel Network Using the Aortic Ring Model.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- BDP1 as a biomarker in serous ovarian cancer.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Detection of early cartilage degeneration in the tibiotalar joint using 3 T gagCEST imaging: a feasibility study.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Article
- Call for Action: Journals Need to Insist on Full Reporting of the Analytical Characteristics of Biomarkers.Laboratory medicine · 2021Article
- 'All hands-on deck', working together to develop UK standards for public involvement in research.Research involvement and engagement · 2020Article
- Article
- Reproducibility of research: Issues and proposed remedies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We find standards useful in everyday life and in science, although we do not always follow them. Adopting new standards can be expensive, so there may be a strong incentive to maintain the
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.