ReviewPhysiological reviews2024
Best practices for data management and sharing in experimental biomedical research.
Review in Physiological reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Managing complexity in research data management for heterogeneous biotechnological data: a perspective on interacting as data steward.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2026Review
- Application and Impact of Quality Assurance Dashboards in Cytology Laboratories-The CytoLog Application.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2026Article
- Launching an independent research laboratory in a digital era: practical lessons for early career investigators.NPP - digital psychiatry and neuroscience · 2026Review
- Collective action for responsible global health data sharing and use.BMJ global health · 2026Review
- Making human derived data FAIR: feedback from NCI office of data sharing workshop.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Analyzing qPCR data: Better practices to facilitate rigor and reproducibility.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Emotional Impairments in Animal Models of Traumatic Neuropathic Pain: Where Do We Stand?Biological psychiatry global open science · 2025Article
- The Super Spreadsheet: collaborative information infrastructure in translational teams.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Alzheimer's disease drug development pipeline: 2026.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Effective data management is crucial for scientific integrity and reproducibility, a cornerstone of scientific progress. Well-organized and well-documented data enable validation and building on results. Data management encompasses activities including organization, documentation, storage, sharing, and preservation. Robust data management establishes credibility, fostering trust within the scientific community and benefiting researchers' careers. In experimental biomedicine, comprehensive data management is vital due to the typically intricate protocols, extensive metadata, and large datasets. Low-throughput experiments, in particular, require careful management to address variations and errors in protocols and raw data quality. Transparent and accountable research practices rely on accurate documentation of procedures, data collection, and analysis methods. Proper data management ensures long-term preservation and accessibility of valuable datasets. Well-managed data can be revisited, contributing to cumulative knowledge and potential new discoveries. Publicly funded research has an added responsibility for transparency, resource allocation, and avoiding redundancy. Meeting funding agency expectations increasingly requires rigorous methodologies, adherence to standards, comprehensive documentation, and widespread sharing of data, code, and other auxiliary resources. This review provides critical insights into raw and processed data, metadata, high-throughput versus low-throughput datasets, a common language for documentation, experimental and reporting guidelines, efficient data management systems, sharing practices, and relevant repositories. We systematically present available resources and optimal practices for wide use by experimental biomedical researchers.
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.