ArticleDisease models & mechanisms2024
Negative equity - the value of reporting negative results.
Article in Disease models & mechanisms, 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.
- Paediatric Genetic Diseases: Models, Mechanisms and Therapies.Disease models & mechanisms · 2026Article
- Scientific Interest and Publication Patterns in Odontoblast-Neuron Crosstalk Research Related to Dentinal Hypersensitivity: A Bibliometric and Altmetric Review.Molecular neurobiology · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Pafolacianine (CytaluxMolecular imaging and biology · 2026Article
- Self-perceived far vision quality and night driving difficulties are not related to night myopia or visual acuity.PloS one · 2026Article
- Aptamer-based applications in delivering cancer gene therapies and beyond: state of the art and the missing links to clinical translation.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2025Review
- What must not be named : Facts, emotions and coping strategies to enhance animal welfare in research.EMBO reports · 2025Article
- Travelling through time with Disease Models & Mechanisms.Disease models & mechanisms · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A pervasive discussion point within the scientific community is the value of unpublished or unavailable data. Researchers, funders, ethical review bodies, editors and publishers have all highlighted the need to make more data available to enhance experimental planning and interpretation and to prevent others from repeating similar experiments. This is particularly important in the context of experimentation involving animals and efforts towards replacement, refinement and reduction. However, despite this broad agreement, sharing data that show inconclusive, statistically insignificant or unremarkable results is still not common practice. In this Editorial, we will highlight the value of what are often coined negative (or null) data and outline some emerging initiatives to address the gap between data generated in laboratories and data available to the wider scientific community.
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.