Checklists for Authors Improve the Reporting of Basic Science Research.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Checklist on the Quality of the Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation (rPMS) Methods in Research: An International Delphi Study.Frontiers in neurology · 2022
   Article
2. Using the concept of "deserved trust" to strengthen the value and integrity of biomedical research.Accountability in research · 2021
   Article
3. Do we really know how many clinical trials are conducted ethically? Why research ethics committee review practices need to be strengthened and initial steps we could take to strengthen them.Journal of medical ethics · 2021
   Review
4. Moving towards less biased research.BMJ open science · 2021
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Journal Initiatives to Enhance Preclinical Research: Analyses of2020

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as