Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33464305›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of general physiology2021

Pseudoreplication in physiology: More means less.

David A Eisner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of general physiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing 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

55 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Amyloid β alters vascular CaThe Journal of physiology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Soluble guanylyl cyclase, the NO receptor, drives vasorelaxation via endothelial S-nitrosation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. α1Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

David A EisnerUnit of Cardiac Physiology, Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/2000004/12801
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article reviews how to analyze data from experiments designed to compare the cellular physiology of two or more groups of animals or people. This is commonly done by measuring data from several cells from each animal and using simple t tests or ANOVA to compare between groups. I use simulations to illustrate that this method can give erroneous positive results by assuming that the cells from each animal are independent of each other. This problem, which may be responsible for much of the lack of reproducibility in the literature, can be easily avoided by using a hierarchical, nested statistics approach.

Indexed as

EcologyResearch DesignAnimalsHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID33464305
PMCPMC7814346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.