ReviewExperimental physiology2024
Myths and Methodologies: Standardisation in human physiology research-should we control the controllables?
Review in Experimental physiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of oral contraceptive consumption timing on substrate metabolism, cognition, and exercise performance in females: a randomised controlled trial.European journal of applied physiology · 2025Trial
- 7 days of L-citrulline supplementation does not improve running performance in the heat whilst in a hypohydrated state.European journal of applied physiology · 2025Trial
- Contemporary concepts in 'exercise as medicine' and related fields.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Status quo of Experimental Physiology - Anno 2025: What's in a name?Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Evaluating sensor-based stress detection in paediatric dentistry: methodological considerations and future directions.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Article
- Motor cortical excitability and inhibition are differentially modulated by aerobic exercise intensity.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- Myths and Methodologies: Standardisation in human physiology research-should we control the controllables?Experimental physiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The premise of research in human physiology is to explore a multifaceted system whilst identifying one or a few outcomes of interest. Therefore, the control of potentially confounding variables requires careful thought regarding the extent of control and complexity of standardisation. One common factor to control prior to testing is diet, as food and fluid provision may deviate from participants' habitual diets, yet a self-report and replication method can be flawed by under-reporting. Researchers may also need to consider standardisation of physical activity, whether it be through familiarisation trials, wash-out periods, or guidance on levels of physical activity to be achieved before trials. In terms of pharmacological agents, the ethical implications of standardisation require researchers to carefully consider how medications, caffeine consumption and oral contraceptive prescriptions may affect the study. For research in females, it should be considered whether standardisation between- or within-participants in regards to menstrual cycle phase is most relevant. The timing of measurements relative to various other daily events is relevant to all physiological research and so it can be important to standardise when measurements are made. This review summarises the areas of standardisation which we hope will be considered useful to anyone involved in human physiology research, including when and how one can apply standardisation to various contexts.
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.