ReviewAmerican journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology2022
Insufficient reporting of experimental variables as a cause for nonreproducibility in animal physiology? A case study.
Review in American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing the 3Rs in bone tissue engineering: emergingFrontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Reporting of measures against bias in nonclinical published research studies: a journal-based comparison.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- Incorporating Quantitative Literacy into a T32 Retreat: Lessons and Considerations from Experience.eNeuro · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-, organoid-, and organ-on-chip-powered models to improve pre-clinical animal testing of vaccines and immunotherapeutics: potential, progress, and challenges.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Review
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
Nonreproducibility in scientific investigations has been explained by inadequately reporting methodology, honest error, and even misconduct. We hypothesized that, within the field of animal physiology, the most parsimonious explanation for nonreproducibility is inadequate reporting of key methodological details. We further hypothesized that implementation of relatively recently released reporting guidelines has positively impacted journal article quality, as measured by completeness of the methodology descriptions. We analyzed 84 research articles published in five primarily organismal animal physiology journals in 2008-2010 (generally before current guidelines) and 2018-2020. Compliance for reporting 34 variables referring to biology, experiments, and data collection was assessed. Reporting compliance was just ∼61% in 2008-2010, rising only slightly to 67.5% for 2018-2020. Only 21% of the reported variables showed significant differences across the period from 2008-2020. We conclude that, despite attempts by societies and journals to promote greater reporting compliance, such efforts have so far been relatively unsuccessful in the field of animal physiology.
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.