Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32881868›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2020

Ten simple rules on how to write a standard operating procedure.

Susanne Hollmann, Marcus Frohme, Christoph Endrullat, Andreas Kremer, Domenica D'Elia, Babette Regierer, Alina Nechyporenko, Cost Action CA15110

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Learning curve analysis of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic hysterectomy combined under the standard operating procedure.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022
    Article
  9. Transgender data collection in the electronic health record: Current concepts and issues.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Susanne HollmannPotsdam University, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9032-2035
Marcus FrohmeTechnical University of Applied Sciences, Wildau, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9063-2682
Christoph EndrullatTechnical University of Applied Sciences, Wildau, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8646-6589
Andreas KremerITTM Information Technology for Translational Medicine, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxemburg.ORCID 0000-0003-1466-0600
Domenica D'EliaInstitute for Biomedical Technologies, National Research Council, Bari, Italy.
Babette RegiererSB Science Management UG (haftungsbeschränkt), Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5263-4553
Alina NechyporenkoTechnical University of Applied Sciences, Wildau, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4501-7426
Cost Action CA15110

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research publications and data nowadays should be publicly available on the internet and, theoretically, usable for everyone to develop further research, products, or services. The long-term accessibility of research data is, therefore, fundamental in the economy of the research production process. However, the availability of data is not sufficient by itself, but also their quality must be verifiable. Measures to ensure reuse and reproducibility need to include the entire research life cycle, from the experimental design to the generation of data, quality control, statistical analysis, interpretation, and validation of the results. Hence, high-quality records, particularly for providing a string of documents for the verifiable origin of data, are essential elements that can act as a certificate for potential users (customers). These records also improve the traceability and transparency of data and processes, therefore, improving the reliability of results. Standards for data acquisition, analysis, and documentation have been fostered in the last decade driven by grassroot initiatives of researchers and organizations such as the Research Data Alliance (RDA). Nevertheless, what is still largely missing in the life science academic research are agreed procedures for complex routine research workflows. Here, well-crafted documentation like standard operating procedures (SOPs) offer clear direction and instructions specifically designed to avoid deviations as an absolute necessity for reproducibility. Therefore, this paper provides a standardized workflow that explains step by step how to write an SOP to be used as a starting point for appropriate research documentation.

Indexed as

MethodsRecordsDocumentationHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignWorkflowWriting

Identifiers

PMID32881868
PMCPMC7470745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.