GuidelineNature human behaviour2020
A consensus-based transparency checklist.
Guideline in Nature human behaviour, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 49 papers, 3 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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2021Guideline
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.PLoS medicine · 2021Guideline
- The Potential of Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy-Based Neurofeedback-A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Best Practice.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Pooled it
- Stressor-elicited smoking and craving during a smoking cessation attempt.Journal of psychopathology and clinical science · 2022Trial
- An international consensus on core reproducibility items in research.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Commentary on Nagy et al. (2025): bestiary of questionable research practices in psychology.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Observational
- Improving statistical reporting in psychology.Communications psychology · 2025Review
- Experimenter evidence unmasking as a confound in optional stopping.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Idiographic Lapse Prediction With State Space Modeling: Algorithm Development and Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Observational
- Heterogeneity in effect size estimates.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Supporting study registration to reduce research waste.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024Review
- Subjective evidence evaluation survey for many-analysts studies.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Ten Ways to Improve Getting a Scientific Manuscript Accepted.Head and neck pathology · 2024Article
- Clarifying the relationship between mental illness and recidivism using machine learning: A retrospective study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Exploring how researchers consider nutrition trial design and participant adherence: a theory-based analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- Understanding 'error' in the forensic sciences: A primer.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Review
- Establishing circularity: development and validation of the circular work value scale (CWVS).Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Acceptability of Personal Sensing Among People With Alcohol Use Disorder: Observational Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
67 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.