ArticleInternational journal of clinical practice2020
Why knowing healthy controls matters.
Article in International journal of clinical practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Biomarkers of stroke recovery using EEG-based resting-state functional connectivity: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of fMRI neurofeedback reporting and effects in clinical populations.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2020Pooled it
- A multi-step screening algorithm for fecal microbiota transplantation donors: integrating metagenomic and metabolomic profiling for improved safety and donor quality assessment.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- The Interaction BetweenBrain sciences · 2025Article
- Disordered gambling among people with psychotic disorders: a systematic review.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Although healthy volunteers often serve as controls or primary participants in neuroscience research, they are usually less rigorously screened than patients, which can have far-reaching implications for interpretation of study results. Although this issue has long been recognised, it is rarely discussed in the research literature. This article examines how the rigorous screening and characterisation of healthy volunteers is key for quality 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.