ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2024
Building transparency and reproducibility into the practice of pharmacoepidemiology and outcomes research.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of the Target Trial Emulation Framework to Studies in the Pediatric Population.The Journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Data sharing in acupuncture meta-analyses: Associations with journal policies and practical considerations.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Advancing real-world evidence in Brazil: regulatory gaps and global lessons.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Review
- Re: Lin et al., "On the reported methodology in published TriNetX-based studies: an analysis of impossible index event designs".European journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- A scoping review of real-world evidence generation methods to estimate the safety of type 2 diabetes medications on fracture risk.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- Preregistration of high-quality protocols in pharmacoepidemiology research.JCPP advances · 2025Article
- Real-world management and outcomes of immune-related adverse events in German cancer care: A multicenter analysis using the SERIO registry.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Sociodemographic factors, biomarkers and comorbidities associated with post-acute COVID-19 sequelae in UK Biobank.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Extent of Open Science Practices in the Reporting of Real World Evidence Research.International journal of population data science · 2025Article
- The Impact of Low EHR-Continuity on Effect Estimates: Evidence from Two EHR-Medicare Linked Databases.Clinical epidemiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-world evidence (RWE) studies are increasingly used to inform policy and clinical decisions. However, there remain concerns about the credibility and reproducibility of RWE studies. While there is universal agreement on the critical importance of transparent and reproducible science, the building blocks of open science practice that are common across many disciplines have not yet been built into routine workflows for pharmacoepidemiology and outcomes researchers. Observational researchers should highlight the level of transparency of their studies by providing a succinct statement addressing study transparency with the publication of every paper, poster, or presentation that reports on an RWE study. In this paper, we propose a framework for an explicit transparency statement that declares the level of transparency a given RWE study has achieved across 5 key domains: (1) protocol, (2) preregistration, (3) data, (4) code-sharing, and (5) reporting checklists. The transparency statement outlined in the present paper can be used by research teams to proudly display the open science practices that were used to generate evidence designed to inform public health policy and practice. While transparency does not guarantee validity, such a statement signals confidence from the research team in the scientific choices that were made.
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.