Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38768101›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Identifying meta-research with researchers as study subjects: Protocol for a scoping review.

Gregory Laynor, Elizabeth R Stevens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Gregory LaynorNYU Health Sciences Library, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4578-4051
Elizabeth R StevensDepartment of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6063-1523

Funding

Advancing the Development of Collaborative Research Networks to Enhance Aging Research ValueK01AG075169 · NIA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Elizabeth Reid Stevens · 2022 to 2026
$639k
NIA NIH HHS K01 AG075169
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeta-research in which researchers are the study subjects can illuminate how to better support researchers and enhance the development of research capacity. Comprehensively compiling the literature in this area can help define best practices for research capacity development and reveal gaps in the literature. However, there are challenges to assessing and synthesizing the breadth of the meta-research literature produced.

methodsIn this article, we discuss the current barriers to conducting literature reviews on meta-research and strategies to address these barriers. We then outline proposed methods for conducting a scoping review on meta-research with researchers as study subjects. DISCUSSION: Due to its interdisciplinary nature, broad scope, and difficult to pinpoint terminology, little is known about the state of meta-research with researchers as the study subjects. For this reason, there is a need for a scoping review that will identify research performed in which researchers were the study subjects.

Indexed as

Research DesignResearch PersonnelHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicScoping Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID38768101
PMCPMC11104640

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.