A journal club to fix science.

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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The struggle to make transparency mainstream: initial evidence for a slow uptake of open science practices in PhD theses.Royal Society open science · 2025
   Article
2. International initiatives to enhance awareness and uptake of open research in psychology: a systematic mapping review.Royal Society open science · 2025
   Review
3. Developments and future directions in neurodevelopmental research: A commentary on 'camouflaging in neurodivergent and neurotypical girls at the transition to adolescence and its relationship to mental health: A participatory methods research study'.JCPP advances · 2024
   Article
4. A grassroots approach to peer support by the Danish Reproducibility Network.BMC research notes · 2024
   Article
5. Research culture in biomedicine: what we learned, and what we would like to do about it.Communications biology · 2024
   Article
6. Eleven strategies for making reproducible research and open science training the norm at research institutions.eLife · 2023
   Article
7. From Methods to Monographs: Fostering a Culture of Research Quality.eNeuro · 2023
   Article
8. The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes.Communications psychology · 2023
   Review
9. Ten simple rules for implementing open and reproducible research practices after attending a training course.PLoS computational biology · 2023
   Review
10. Data Ethics Club: Creating a collaborative space to discuss data ethics.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2022
    Article
11. Recommendations for empowering early career researchers to improve research culture and practice.PLoS biology · 2022
    Article
12. Participatory autism research: Early career and established researchers' views and experiences.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2022
    Article
13. Assessing Open Science practices in physical activity behaviour change intervention evaluations.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2022
    Article
14. Assessing Markers of Reproducibility and Transparency in Smoking Behaviour Change Intervention Evaluations.Journal of smoking cessation · 2021
    Article
15. Two years into the Brazilian Reproducibility Initiative: reflections on conducting a large-scale replication of Brazilian biomedical science.Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · 2020
    Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Funders and journals, not students, should lead on standards for research rigour.2019
• Comment on
  False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant.2011
• Comment on
  Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex.2013
• Comment on
  PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.2015

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as