Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38451234›Full record

ReviewPhysiological reviews2024

Best practices for data management and sharing in experimental biomedical research.

Teresa Cunha-Oliveira, John P A Ioannidis, Paulo J Oliveira

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Application and Impact of Quality Assurance Dashboards in Cytology Laboratories-The CytoLog Application.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Alzheimer's disease drug development pipeline: 2026.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Teresa Cunha-OliveiraCenter for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-7382-0339
John P A IoannidisMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford, California, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3118-6859
Paulo J OliveiraCenter for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-5201-9948

Funding

EU Horizon 101087416FTC Portugal PTDC/BTM-SAL/29297/2017,POCI-01-0145-FEDER-029297,UIDB/04539/2020,UIDP/04539/2020 and LA/P/0058/2
6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchData ManagementInformation DisseminationAnimalsHumansbiomedicinedata managementmetadataraw datareporting guidelinesreproducibility

Identifiers

PMID38451234
PMCPMC11380994

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.