ArticleInnovation in aging2019
Open Science is for Aging Research, Too.
Article in Innovation in aging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Temporal discounting across adulthood: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Psychology and aging · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review on post-stroke computerized cognitive training: Unveiling the impact of confounding factors.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Pooled it
- Open science in dementia care embedded pragmatic clinical trials.Psychology and aging · 2022Trial
- An assessment of data and code sharing in research funded by the Nathan Shock Centers, 2017-2022: a meta-research study.Innovation in aging · 2026Article
- Challenges and opportunities of psychological aging research.European journal of ageing · 2025Review
- Integrating Machine Learning with Multi-Omics Technologies in Geroscience: Towards Personalized Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Incorporating ecological momentary assessment into multimethod investigations of cognitive aging: Promise and practical considerations.Psychology and aging · 2022Article
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
Abstract
In response to concerns about the replicability of published research, some disciplines have used open science practices to try to enhance the credibility of published findings. Gerontology has been slow to embrace these changes. We argue that open science is important for aging research, both to reduce questionable research practices that may also be prevalent in the field (such as too many reported significant age differences in the literature, underpowered studies, hypothesizing after the results are known, and lack of belief updating when findings do not support theories), as well as to make research in the field more transparent overall. To ensure the credibility of gerontology research moving forward, we suggest concrete ways to incorporate open science into gerontology research: for example, by using available preregistration templates adaptable to a variety of study designs typical for aging research (even secondary analyses of existing data). Larger sample sizes may be achieved by many-lab collaborations. Though using open science practices may make some aspects of gerontology research more challenging, we believe that gerontology needs open science to ensure credibility now and in the future.
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.