ArticleCureus2022
Weaknesses in Experimental Design and Reporting Decrease the Likelihood of Reproducibility and Generalization of Recent Cardiovascular Research.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Current Status and Future Opportunities in Modeling Clinical Characteristics of Multiple Sclerosis.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Funders' Expectations for Open Science in Cardiovascular Research: A Scoping Review of the Largest Cardiovascular Research Funders.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- A call to action to address critical flaws and bias in laboratory animal experiments and preclinical research.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Reporting quality of animal research in journals that published the ARRIVE 1.0 or ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines: a cross-sectional analysis of 943 studies.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2024Article
- Evaluating Study Design Rigor in Preclinical Cardiovascular Research: A Replication Study.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent evidence indicates that many clinical and preclinical studies are not reproducible. Prominent causes include design and implementation issues, low statistical power, unintentional bias, and incomplete reporting in the published literature. The primary goal of this study was to assess the quality of published research in three prominent cardiovascular research journals by examining statistical power and assessing the adherence to augmented ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments). For unpaired t
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.