ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2021
Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 4 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
46 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Citation and adherence to TRIPOD guidelines by published radiological prognostic models: systematic review.The British journal of radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnosis or prognosis? An umbrella review of mid-trimester cervical length and spontaneous preterm birth.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2023Pooled it
- Development and internal-external validation of statistical and machine learning models for breast cancer prognostication: cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Prognostic Models for Healthcare-Associated Infection Prediction in Adult Intensive Care Units: A Systematic Review Protocol.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Methodological review of the level of statistical support declared in radiological research articles.The British journal of radiology · 2026Review
- Integrating Blood-Based Immune-Inflammation Biomarkers into Artificial Intelligence-Driven Prognostic Models in Oncology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Towards a unified approach to formal "risk of bias" assessments for causal and descriptive inference.Quality & quantity · 2026Article
- Gaps in tropical science from unrepresentative distribution of sampling and citation across natural terrestrial environments.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Article
- Standardizing Methodologies in Prosthodontics to Improve Research Reliability and Peer Review Efficiency: A Perspective-Based Proposal.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Reporting Quality of Trend Analyses Published in Leading Medicine and Oncology Journals during 2008-2018.Exploratory research and hypothesis in medicine · 2025Article
- Design aspects for prognostic factor studies.BMJ open · 2025Review
- Commentary: Teaching Statistics as Minor Subject-Handing on Fire, Not Worshipping Ashes.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Retractions in Otolaryngology Publications.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2025Article
- PROBAST+AI: an updated quality, risk of bias, and applicability assessment tool for prediction models using regression or artificial intelligence methods.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Improving Replication in Endometrial Omics: Understanding the Influence of the Menstrual Cycle.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- A policy framework for leveraging generative AI to address enduring challenges in clinical trials.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- How should trial teams make decisions about the proportions and diversity of the ethnic groups in their trial?Trials · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Covid-19 research made it painfully clear that the scandal of poor medical research, as denounced by Altman in 1994, persists today. The overall quality of medical research remains poor, despite longstanding criticisms. The problems are well known, but the research community fails to properly address them. We suggest that most problems stem from an underlying paradox: although methodology is undeniably the backbone of high-quality and responsible research, science consistently undervalues methodology. The focus remains more on the destination (research claims and metrics) than on the journey. Notwithstanding, research should serve society more than the reputation of those involved. While we notice that many initiatives are being established to improve components of the research cycle, these initiatives are too disjointed. The overall system is monolithic and slow to adapt. We assert that top-down action is needed from journals, universities, funders and governments to break the cycle and put methodology first. These actions should involve the widespread adoption of registered reports, balanced research funding between innovative, incremental and methodological research projects, full recognition and demystification of peer review, improved methodological review of reports, adherence to reporting guidelines, and investment in methodological education and research. Currently, the scientific enterprise is doing a major disservice to patients and society.
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.