ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Rigor Me This: What Are the Basic Criteria for a Rigorous, Transparent, and Reproducible Scientific Study?
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Doctored: fraud, arrogance, and tragedy in the quest to cure Alzheimer's": an important new book with direct relevance to GeroScience.GeroScience · 2025Article
- Dietary Branched-Chain Amino Acids Modify Postinfarct Cardiac Remodeling and Function in the Murine Heart.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Matricellular protein CCN1 promotes collagen alignment and scar integrity after myocardial infarction.Matrix biology : journal of the International Society for Matrix Biology · 2024Article
- Dietary Branched Chain Amino Acids Modify Post-Infarct Cardiac Remodeling and Function in the Murine Heart.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Starting off strong: Rigor and reproducibility in the early career.Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology plus · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scientific advancement is predicated upon the ability of a novel discovery to be independently reproduced and substantiated by others. Despite this inherent necessity, the research community is awash in published studies that cannot be replicated resulting in widespread confusion within the field and waning trust from the general public. In many cases, irreproducibility is the unavoidable consequence of a study that is conducted without the appropriate degree of rigor, typified by fundamental flaws in approach, design, execution, analysis, interpretation, and reporting. Combatting the irreproducibility pandemic in preclinical research is of urgent concern and is the primary responsibility of individual investigators, however there are important roles to be played by institutions, journals, government entities, and funding agencies as well. Herein, we provide an updated review of established rigor criteria pertaining to both
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.