ArticlePLoS biology2025
Ending publication bias: A values-based approach to surface null and negative results.
Article in PLoS biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative effectiveness of ten traditional Chinese herbal formulas for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- The Change Club intervention: 2-year impacts from a cluster-randomized trial in rural communities in New York and Texas.Frontiers in public health · 2026Trial
- Manual tracking modulates representational momentum independently of visual feedback.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
- TOP 2025: An update to the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- E-health intervention in pregnant women exposed to intimate partner violence (eIPV): Results of a pilot randomised controlled trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026Article
- Review
- Nutrient variation shapes survival without altering activity or social interaction networks in a sawfly.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
43 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sharing knowledge is a basic tenet of the scientific community, yet publication bias arising from the reluctance or inability to publish negative or null results remains a long-standing and deep-seated problem, albeit one that varies in severity between disciplines and study types. Recognizing that previous endeavors to address the issue have been fragmentary and largely unsuccessful, this Consensus View proposes concrete and concerted measures that major stakeholders can take to create and incentivize new pathways for publishing negative results. Funders, research institutions, publishers, learned societies, and the research community all have a role in making this an achievable norm that will buttress public trust in science.
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.