Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34898694›Full record

ArticleGeographical analysis2021

Reproducible Science Is Vital for a Stronger Evidence Base During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Karla Therese L Sy, Laura F White, Brooke E Nichols

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Geographical analysis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Karla Therese L SyDepartment of Epidemiology Boston University School of Public Health Boston MA USA.
Laura F WhiteDepartment of Biostatistics Boston University School of Public Health Boston MA USA.
Brooke E NicholsDepartment of Global Health Boston University School of Public Health Boston MA USA.

Funding

Maximizing Investigators' Research Award (R35)R35GM141821 · NIGMS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI WHITE, LAURA FORSBERG · 2021 to 2025
$1.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM141821
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reproducible research becomes even more imperative as we build the evidence base on SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. In his study, Paez assessed the reproducibility of COVID-19 research during the pandemic, using a case study of population density. He found that most articles that assess the relationship of population density and COVID-19 outcomes do not publicly share data and code, except for a few, including our paper, which he stated "illustrates the importance of good reproducibility practices". Paez recreated our analysis using our code and data from the perspective of spatial analysis, and his new model came to a different conclusion. The disparity between our and Paez's findings, as well as other existing literature on the topic, give greater impetus to the need for further research. As there has been near exponential growth of COVID-19 research across a wide range of scientific disciplines, reproducible science is a vital component to produce reliable, rigorous, and robust evidence on COVID-19, which will be essential to inform clinical practice and policy in order to effectively eliminate the pandemic.

Identifiers

PMID34898694
PMCPMC8652901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.