ArticlePLoS biology2018
Reproducible research practices, transparency, and open access data in the biomedical literature, 2015-2017.
Article in PLoS biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 116 papers, 10 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
116 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of psychedelics on neurogenesis and broader neuroplasticity: a systematic review.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Pooled it
- Machine learning-based prediction models for pressure injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic review of research design and reporting of imaging studies applying convolutional neural networks for radiological cancer diagnosis.European radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic review of the status of veterinary epidemiological research in two species regarding the FAIR guiding principles.BMC veterinary research · 2021Pooled it
- Applications of machine learning to undifferentiated chest pain in the emergency department: A systematic review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence versus clinicians: systematic review of design, reporting standards, and claims of deep learning studies.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Pooled it
- Evaluation of confounding in epidemiologic studies assessing alcohol consumption on the risk of ischemic heart disease.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Pooled it
- Algorithmic bias in social research: A meta-analysis.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- The development of QERM scoring system for comprehensive assessment of the Quality of Empirical Research in Medicine - Part 1.Journal of postgraduate medicinePooled it
- Article
- Data sharing statements: impact of journal policies across clinical research disciplines.European heart journal · 2026Article
- Open Science Practices in Systematic Reviews From 2014 to 2024: A Cohort Study of 300 Systematic Reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Predicting the Future of Aesthetic Surgery: An Artificial Intelligence Framework for Global Publication Forecasting.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Observational
- Transparency in Conflict of Interest Meta-Research: Author Identification and Implications for Clinical Evidence.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Nicotinamide for Skin Cancer Chemoprevention: The Jury Was Out and Still is.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2026Review
- AI-assisted forecasting in microsurgery: A dual-component framework for global publication trends.PloS one · 2026Article
- Bridging the gap: methodological challenges and innovations in systematic reviews of machine learning models in healthcare.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Editorial commitment to trust and integrity in science: implications for pain and anesthesiology research.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Article
- Estimating the Replicability of Sports and Exercise Science Research.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
56 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
Currently, there is a growing interest in ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of the published scientific literature. According to a previous evaluation of 441 biomedical journals articles published in 2000-2014, the biomedical literature largely lacked transparency in important dimensions. Here, we surveyed a random sample of 149 biomedical articles published between 2015 and 2017 and determined the proportion reporting sources of public and/or private funding and conflicts of interests, sharing protocols and raw data, and undergoing rigorous independent replication and reproducibility checks. We also investigated what can be learned about reproducibility and transparency indicators from open access data provided on PubMed. The majority of the 149 studies disclosed some information regarding funding (103, 69.1% [95% confidence interval, 61.0% to 76.3%]) or conflicts of interest (97, 65.1% [56.8% to 72.6%]). Among the 104 articles with empirical data in which protocols or data sharing would be pertinent, 19 (18.3% [11.6% to 27.3%]) discussed publicly available data; only one (1.0% [0.1% to 6.0%]) included a link to a full study protocol. Among the 97 articles in which replication in studies with different data would be pertinent, there were five replication efforts (5.2% [1.9% to 12.2%]). Although clinical trial identification numbers and funding details were often provided on PubMed, only two of the articles without a full text article in PubMed Central that discussed publicly available data at the full text level also contained information related to data sharing on PubMed; none had a conflicts of interest statement on PubMed. Our evaluation suggests that although there have been improvements over the last few years in certain key indicators of reproducibility and transparency, opportunities exist to improve reproducible research practices across the biomedical literature and to make features related to reproducibility more readily visible in PubMed.
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.