Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38455335›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in epidemiology2022

It's time! Ten reasons to start replicating simulation studies.

Anna Lohmann, Oscar L O Astivia, Tim P Morris, Rolf H H Groenwold

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

4 authors.

Anna LohmannDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Oscar L O AstiviaCollege of Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Tim P MorrisMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rolf H H GroenwoldDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/29
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The quantitative analysis of research data is a core element of empirical research. The performance of statistical methods that are used for analyzing empirical data can be evaluated and compared using computer simulations. A single simulation study can influence the analyses of thousands of empirical studies to follow. With great power comes great responsibility. Here, we argue that this responsibility includes replication of simulation studies to ensure a sound foundation for data analytical decisions. Furthermore, being designed, run, and reported by humans, simulation studies face challenges similar to other experimental empirical research and hence should not be exempt from replication attempts. We highlight that the potential replicability of simulation studies is an opportunity quantitative methodology as a field should pay more attention to.

Indexed as

data analysisreplicationreproductionresearch statisticssimulation study

Identifiers

PMID38455335
PMCPMC10911016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.