Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36240832›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet. Global health2022

Robustness of evidence reported in preprints during peer review.

Lindsay Nelson, Honghan Ye, Anna Schwenn, Shinhyo Lee, Salsabil Arabi, B Ian Hutchins

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet. Global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Prediction of transformative breakthroughs in biomedical research.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Can I trust this paper?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  10. Evidence for the Efficacy of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Predicting substantive biomedical citations without full text.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Preprints versus peer-reviewed articles.The Lancet. Global health · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lindsay NelsonInformation School, School of Computer, Data and Information Sciences, College of Letters and Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Honghan YeDepartment of Statistics, School of Computer, Data and Information Sciences, College of Letters and Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Anna SchwennInformation School, School of Computer, Data and Information Sciences, College of Letters and Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Shinhyo LeeInformation School, School of Computer, Data and Information Sciences, College of Letters and Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Salsabil ArabiInformation School, School of Computer, Data and Information Sciences, College of Letters and Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
B Ian HutchinsInformation School, School of Computer, Data and Information Sciences, College of Letters and Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. Electronic address: bihutchins@wisc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientists have expressed concern that the risk of flawed decision making is increased through the use of preprint data that might change after undergoing peer review. This Health Policy paper assesses how COVID-19 evidence presented in preprints changes after review. We quantified attrition dynamics of more than 1000 epidemiological estimates first reported in 100 preprints matched to their subsequent peer-reviewed journal publication. Point estimate values changed an average of 6% during review; the correlation between estimate values before and after review was high (0·99) and there was no systematic trend. Expert peer-review scores of preprint quality were not related to eventual publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Uncertainty was reduced during peer review, with CIs reducing by 7% on average. These results support the use of preprints, a component of biomedical research literature, in decision making. These results can also help inform the use of preprints during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and future disease outbreaks.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCOVID-19Disease OutbreaksHumansPandemicsPeer Review

Identifiers

PMID36240832
PMCPMC9553196

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.