Articlenpj aging2025
Reporting quality, effect sizes, and biases for aging interventions: a methodological appraisal of the DrugAge database.
Article in npj aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From cell to disease: Regulatory networks and mechanisms of super‑enhancers in aging (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
- Geroprotective Effects of Drugs Modulating Metabolic Pathways: Perspectives of Pharmacology in Anti-Aging Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Though interest has grown significantly over the past decades in interventions that may slow the aging process, most evidence for these interventions still comes from experiments in non-human animals. These studies may suffer from design, quality and reporting issues. The quality and reporting of preclinical studies have not yet been studied systematically in anti-aging research. Here we analyzed the DrugAge database, assessing reporting study quality, bias and effect sizes across 667 anti-aging preclinical studies. We found significant shortcomings in reporting of crucial design features such as randomization and blinding, as well as large variation in reporting quality and effects across species. Only one third of non-mammal findings translated to mammals. Although anti-aging interventions may have different effects depending on when they are started, most studies began giving the intervention under investigation very early in the organism's lifespan. Our findings suggest there is substantial room for improvement in preclinical anti-aging research.
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.