ReviewJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2020
Reducing bias and improving transparency in medical research: a critical overview of the problems, progress and suggested next steps.
Review in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 5 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating the impact of video cameras on participant behaviour in research: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Communicating neurological prognosis in the prenatal period: a narrative review and practice guidelines.Pediatric research · 2025Guideline
- Traditional Chinese medicine for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: an overview of systematic reviews with evidence mapping and metabolic outcome assessment.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Assessment of color changes and adverse effects of over-the-counter bleaching protocols: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy, safety, and potential industry bias in using deoxycholic acid for submental fat reduction ‒ A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2023Pooled it
- Routine care practices for stable lung allograft recipients beyond the initial post-transplant year: An international survey study.JHLT open · 2026Article
- Exploring the application of Artificial Intelligence in palliative care and its practical, technical and ethical considerations: a scoping review.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Dietary sodium reduction and blood pressure: a dose-response meta-analysis in hypertensive and chronic kidney disease patients.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Promoting informed health choices: the long and winding road.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2025Article
- Design aspects for prognostic factor studies.BMJ open · 2025Review
- Reporting guidelines for chatbot health advice studies: explanation and elaboration for the Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART).BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Injury risk and prevention research in sports: Are titles delivering on their promises or are they just a sales pitch to capitalize on a hot topic?Journal of sport and health science · 2025Article
- Improving transparency in conservation social science research to enhance quality, equity, and collaboration.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Describing the landscape of nutrition- and diet-related randomized controlled trials: metaresearch study of protocols published between 2012 and 2022.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
- Improving research transparency with individualized report cards: A feasibility study in clinical trials at a large university medical center.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Ethical and academic dilemmas in authorship of clinical research publications: a medical oncologist's perspective.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- The impact of photovoice on mental health and stigma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Dataset for a qualitative interview study exploring the barriers and facilitators to using and recommending aspirin for cancer prevention.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2025Article
- Open science practices among early-career human-computer interaction researchers in the US.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years there has been increasing awareness of problems that have undermined trust in medical research. This review outlines some of the most important issues including research culture, reporting biases, and statistical and methodological issues. It examines measures that have been instituted to address these problems and explores the success and limitations of these measures. The paper concludes by proposing three achievable actions which could be implemented to deliver significantly improved transparency and mitigation of bias. These measures are as follows: (1) mandatory registration of interests by those involved in research; (2) that journals support the 'registered reports' publication format; and (3) that comprehensive study documentation for all publicly funded research be made available on a World Health Organization research repository. We suggest that achieving such measures requires a broad-based campaign which mobilises public opinion. We invite readers to feedback on the proposed actions and to join us in calling for their implementation.
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.