ArticleeLife2020
Framework for advancing rigorous research.
Article in eLife, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recommendations for robust and reproducible preclinical research in personalised medicine.BMC medicine · 2023Guideline
- Floor Substrate Preferences of Chickens: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Pooled it
- The mysterious case of missing lymphocytes: a cautionary tale of interinstitutional variability in outcomes of lung dissociation protocols.American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2025Article
- Research culture in biomedicine: what we learned, and what we would like to do about it.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
- Identifying barriers and enablers to rigorous conduct and reporting of preclinical laboratory studies.PLoS biology · 2023Article
- Ten simple rules for implementing open and reproducible research practices after attending a training course.PLoS computational biology · 2023Review
- A qualitative study of the barriers to using blinding in in vivo experiments and suggestions for improvement.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency in Shared Research Resources: Follow-Up Survey and Recommendations for Improvements.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2022Article
- Improving transparency-A call to include social housing information in biomedical research articles involving nonhuman primates.American journal of primatology · 2022Article
- Practicing virology: making and knowing a mid-twentieth century experiment with Tobacco mosaic virus.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2022Article
- Metabolism-based therapies for epilepsy: new directions for future cures.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2021Review
- How to measure and evaluate binding affinities.eLife · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors at 20 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
There is a pressing need to increase the rigor of research in the life and biomedical sciences. To address this issue, we propose that communities of 'rigor champions' be established to campaign for reforms of the research culture that has led to shortcomings in rigor. These communities of rigor champions would also assist in the development and adoption of a comprehensive educational platform that would teach the principles of rigorous science to researchers at all career stages.
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.