ArticleBMC research notes2021
Reproducibility and research integrity: the role of scientists and institutions.
Article in BMC research notes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessing the reproducibility of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) arthroplasty studies.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- From bone replacement to regeneration. A biomaterials started journey.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Research integrity in Spain: Great expectations, mediocre results.Accountability in research · 2026Article
- Comment on "Epicardial Fat Thickness as a Marker of Coronary Artery Disease in Diabetics: A Single Center Study".Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
- Use as directed? A comparison of software tools intended to check rigor and transparency of published work.PloS one · 2026Article
- Blockchain Technology for Big-data Sharing in Material Genome Engineering.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Exploring the Multifaceted Role of Scientific Paper and Poster Presentations: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Sleep Health Inequities: Sociodemographic, Psychosocial, and Structural Determinants of Short Sleep in U.S. Adults.Clocks & sleep · 2025Article
- Intra- and Inter-Rater Reproducibility of Measures of Physical Performance in Patients with COPD.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Virtual Health Care in Hospital-at-Home Models for Patients With Acute Infections: A Scoping Review.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- Minimizing and quantifying uncertainty in AI-informed decisions: Applications in medicine.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- "Doctored: fraud, arrogance, and tragedy in the quest to cure Alzheimer's": an important new book with direct relevance to GeroScience.GeroScience · 2025Article
- Impact of Intravenous Iron Replacement Therapy on Healthcare Costs for Patients with Iron Deficiency Anemia in the USA: A Retrospective Analysis.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2025Article
- Advancing archaeal research through FAIR resource and data sharing, and inclusive community building.Communications biology · 2025Review
- The development of specific emotion comprehension components in 1285 preschool children.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Optimized Methods to Quantify Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields)-Induced Permeabilization of Glioblastoma Cell Membranes.Methods and protocols · 2025Article
- Data transparency and reproducibility in health research: bridging the gap for early-career researchers.Frontiers in antibiotics · 2025Article
- Improving glass Ionomer performance through plant extracts: a systematic review ofBiomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2025Review
- How to fight fake papers: a review on important information sources and steps towards solution of the problem.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reproducibility and research integrity are essential tenets of every scientific study and discovery. They serve as proof that an established and documented work can be verified, repeated, and reproduced. New knowledge in the biomedical science is built on the shoulders of established and proven principles. Thus, scientists must be able to trust and build on the knowledge of their colleagues. Scientific innovation and research discoveries especially in the field of medicine has contributed to improving the lives of patients and increasing life expectancies. However, the growing concerns of failure to comply with good scientific principles has resulted in issues with research integrity and reproducibility. Poor reproducibility and integrity, therefore, may lead to ineffective interventions and applications. Here we comment on research reproducibility in basic medical and life sciences with regards to issues arising and outline the role of stakeholders such as research institutions and their employees in addressing this crisis.
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.