ArticleEMBO reports2020
Why (and how) we should publish negative data.
Article in EMBO reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prognostic value of dysadherin in cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- The jam-based discovery framework : How lab culture, shared data and collaboration shape scientific discovery.EMBO reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Differential sensitivity of MCPH1- and BRCA2-deficient cancer cells to PARP-1 inhibition.PloS one · 2026Article
- Review
- Isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase depletion reveals vulnerabilities in Mycobacterium abscessus and Mycobacterium marinum.Communications biology · 2025Article
- State of Research on Tissue Engineering with 3D Printing for Breast Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Cross-species analysis of abiotic stress in hydroponic leafy crops reveals conserved regulatory networks and key divergences.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Interdisciplinary Animal Research Ethics-Challenges, Opportunities, and Perspectives.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Better nanoscience through open, collaborative, and critical discussions.Materials horizons · 2024Review
- Testicular tissue re-implantation and the 'hostile testis'.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- What public health challenges and unmet medical needs would benefit from interdisciplinary collaboration in the EU? A survey and multi-stakeholder debate.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Consilience and unity in ocular anterior segment research.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- A critical scientific evaluation of a purportedly negative data report - response to Seneviratne et al. 2022.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses: An appraisal of Arab Journal of Urology across 12 years: the PRISMA-Abstracts checklist.Arab journal of urology · 2023Article
- Reframing the perception of outliers and negative data in translational research.Brain research bulletin · 2023Review
- Article
- Stretching for Recovery from Groin Pain or Injury in Athletes: A Critical and Systematic Review.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2021Review
- ProLint: a web-based framework for the automated data analysis and visualization of lipid-protein interactions.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
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
Negative data and refutations are a crucial element of the scientific process. But it needs solid arguments to convince editors and reviewers to publish negative results.
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.