ArticleIEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology2021
Preliminary Minimum Reporting Requirements for In-Vivo Neural Interface Research: I. Implantable Neural Interfaces.
Article in IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing data protections for implantable brain-computer interfaces.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Accelerating neurotechnology development using an Agile methodology.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Review
- Electrical stimulation to promote osseointegration of bone anchoring implants: a topical review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022Review
- Workshops of the Eighth International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting: BCIs: The Next Frontier.Brain computer interfaces (Abingdon, England) · 2022Article
- Standardization of Neurotechnology for Brain-Machine Interfacing: State of the Art and Recommendations.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The pace of research and development in neuroscience, neurotechnology, and neurorehabilitation is rapidly accelerating, with the number of publications doubling every 4.2 years. Maintaining this progress requires technological standards and scientific reporting guidelines to provide frameworks for communication and interoperability. The present lack of such neurotechnology standards limits the transparency, repro-ducibility, and meta-analysis of this growing body of literature, posing an ongoing barrier to research, clinical, and commercial objectives. Continued neurotechnological innovation requires the development of some minimal standards to promote integration between this broad spectrum of technologies and therapies. To preserve design freedom and accelerate the translation of research into safe and effective technologies with maximal user benefit, such standards must be collaboratively co-developed by the full range of neuroscience and neurotechnology stakeholders. This paper summarizes the preliminary recommendations of IEEE P2794 Standards Working Group, developing a Reporting Standard for
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.