ReviewPsychologica Belgica2019
Preregistration of Analyses of Preexisting Data.
Review in Psychologica Belgica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Pooling data from studies on prolonged grief: the Multi-region Archive of Research data on Bereavement and Loss from Empirical Studies (MARBLES) project.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Article
- A FAIR intensive longitudinal data archive on prolonged grief in daily life.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2025Article
- Current best practices and future opportunities for reproducible findings using large-scale neuroimaging in psychiatry.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024Review
- Open science practices in traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine research: A path to enhanced transparency and collaboration.Integrative medicine research · 2024Article
- Quality Output Checklist and Content Assessment (QuOCCA): a new tool for assessing research quality and reproducibility.BMJ open · 2022Review
- Article
- A survey on how preregistration affects the research workflow: better science but more work.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Open science practices for eating disorders research.The International journal of eating disorders · 2021Article
- Preregistration and Registered Reports: A Key Pathway to Enhancing Robustness and Replicability in Mental Health Research.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2021Article
- Beyond the challenge hypothesis: The emergence of the dual-hormone hypothesis and recommendations for future research.Hormones and behavior · 2020Review
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
The preregistration of a study's hypotheses, methods, and data-analyses steps is becoming a popular psychological research practice. To date, most of the discussion on study preregistration has focused on the preregistration of studies that include the collection of original data. However, much of the research in psychology relies on the (re-)analysis of preexisting data. Importantly, this type of studies is different from original studies as researchers cannot change major aspects of the study (e.g., experimental manipulations, sample size). Here, we provide arguments as to why it is useful to preregister analyses of preexisting data, discuss practical considerations, consider potential concerns, and introduce a preregistration template tailored for studies focused on the analyses of preexisting data. We argue that the preregistration of hypotheses and data-analyses for analyses of preexisting data is an important step towards more transparent psychological research.
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.