ArticlePloS one2018
Simple changes of individual studies can improve the reproducibility of the biomedical scientific process as a whole.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic significance of Standard Uptake Value (SUVAbdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- A Transgenic Mouse With a Humanized B-Cell Repertoire Mounts an Antibody Response to Influenza Infection and Vaccination.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Article
- Sirt1 protects against intervertebral disc degeneration induced by 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D insufficiency in mice by inhibiting the NF-κB inflammatory pathway.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2023Article
- Declaration of common standards for the preregistration of animal research-speeding up the scientific progress.PNAS nexus · 2022Article
- Article
- The Academic, Societal and Animal Welfare Benefits of Open Science for Animal Science.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Refining animal research: The Animal Study Registry.PLoS biology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We developed a new probabilistic model to assess the impact of recommendations rectifying the reproducibility crisis (by publishing both positive and 'negative' results and increasing statistical power) on competing objectives, such as discovering causal relationships, avoiding publishing false positive results, and reducing resource consumption. In contrast to recent publications our model quantifies the impact of each single suggestion not only for an individual study but especially their relation and consequences for the overall scientific process. We can prove that higher-powered experiments can save resources in the overall research process without generating excess false positives. The better the quality of the pre-study information and its exploitation, the more likely this beneficial effect is to occur. Additionally, we quantify the adverse effects of both neglecting good practices in the design and conduct of hypotheses-based research, and the omission of the publication of 'negative' findings. Our contribution is a plea for adherence to or reinforcement of the good scientific practice and publication of 'negative' 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.