ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2025
Meta-Research in Neuroscience: An Urgent Call to Strengthen the Reliability and Translation of Knowledge into Evidence-Based Neurological Practice.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Precision Oxygen Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit: Matching Oxygen Exposure to Patient Phenotypes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Despite the exponential expansion of neuroscience over recent decades, the field has rarely examined the rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of its own evidence base (research on research). Through a brief systematic exploration of the Scopus database, we identified more than 370,000 neuroscience articles, yet only 15 explicitly addressed meta-research questions, representing a mere 0.004% of the total literature. These few studies were concentrated in high-income countries and limited mainly to neuroimaging and methodological reporting, leaving major subfields such as neuropharmacology, neuropathology, and neuroendocrinology virtually unexplored. This striking imbalance reveals a systemic absence of evidence self-assessment and highlights how neuroscience has advanced without adequate reflection on the validity and translatability of its findings. The lack of meta-research weakens the reliability of neuroscientific evidence, slows the development of shared reporting standards, and risks compromising its translation into evidence-based neurological practice. Strengthening global collaboration, fostering reflexivity, and integrating meta-research into neuroscience are urgent steps toward ensuring that the knowledge generated in laboratories and trials truly supports trustworthy, reproducible, and clinically meaningful clinical healthcare in neurological sciences.
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.