ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018
The preregistration revolution.
Article 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 458 papers, 14 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
458 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,847 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effectiveness of implementation intentions in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Pooled it
- [Emotional and social well-being in the indigenous population of Latin America: A systematic review].Atencion primaria · 2026Pooled it
- Brain Association Studies in 2024: A Systematic Review of Sample Sizes and Preregistrations.Psychophysiology · 2026Pooled it
- What evidence syntheses reveal about PROSPERO, INPLASY, OSF, the Research Registry, and protocols.io: a meta-research study.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Pooled it
- Heterogeneity in gender differences in self-reported political preferences, trust, and well-being across 39 European countries.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- The Human Shield Hypothesis: Does Predator Avoidance of Humans Create Refuges for Prey?Ecology letters · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Assessing the Evidential Value of Mental Fatigue and Exercise Research.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Pooled it
- Collection and Analysis of Adherence Information for Software as a Medical Device Clinical Trials: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review of the strength of evidence for the most commonly recommended happiness strategies in mainstream media.Nature human behaviour · 2023Pooled it
- Methods for Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback (HRVB): A Systematic Review and Guidelines.Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Multicomponent Interventions in Office-Based Workers to Mitigate Occupational Sedentary Behavior: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Pooled it
- Within-person associations between psychological and contextual factors and lapse incidence in smokers attempting to quit: A systematic review and meta-analysis of ecological momentary assessment studies.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Highlight results, don't hide them: Enhance interpretation, reduce biases and improve reproducibility.NeuroImage · 2023Pooled it
- No evidence that same-language subtitles improve children's reading fluency.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Trial
- Personalized prediction of response to three meditation practices: A randomized controlled trial.Behaviour research and therapy · 2026Trial
- Investigating the effects of single-dose intranasal testosterone on economic preferences in a large randomized trial of men.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Trial
- Positivity bias in scientific research: Solutions for change.Science advances · 2026Review
- Reproducibility in biomedical research.Nature medicine · 2026Review
- Uncovering Illusions of Understanding: A Falsificationist Perspective.Computational brain & behavior · 2026Article
398 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Progress in science relies in part on generating hypotheses with existing observations and testing hypotheses with new observations. This distinction between postdiction and prediction is appreciated conceptually but is not respected in practice. Mistaking generation of postdictions with testing of predictions reduces the credibility of research findings. However, ordinary biases in human reasoning, such as hindsight bias, make it hard to avoid this mistake. An effective solution is to define the research questions and analysis plan before observing the research outcomes-a process called preregistration. Preregistration distinguishes analyses and outcomes that result from predictions from those that result from postdictions. A variety of practical strategies are available to make the best possible use of preregistration in circumstances that fall short of the ideal application, such as when the data are preexisting. Services are now available for preregistration across all disciplines, facilitating a rapid increase in the practice. Widespread adoption of preregistration will increase distinctiveness between hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing and will improve the credibility of research findings.
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.