Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41807989›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2026

Laying the groundwork and designing for trust: why research protocols matter.

Ellen Davies

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ellen DaviesAdelaide Health Simulation, College of Health, Adelaide University, Adelaide, Australia. ellen.davies@adelaide.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe processes we use to conduct research have evolved over decades and centuries. These evolutions have been shaped by scientific advancements in practice, theory and technology, by community expectations, and through reflections on what we consider to be good research practice. One fundamental process that is not well represented in the public domain is the research protocol, particularly in health simulation and health professions education research. DISCUSSION: Research protocols provide detailed information about why and how research is being conducted. At present, it is not common practice for these documents to be made available to the broader community before data collection commences. Nor is it common practice for protocols to be reviewed alongside final project reports at the peer-review stage. This paper describes and discusses many of the reasons that a priori research protocols are increasingly being made publicly available through peer-reviewed publication or registration on open science platforms. These include the reduction of research waste, the increase in trust we can engender through transparency, and the opportunities we have to learn through the processes of conducting research, not just from the findings.

conclusionOver time, and as a society, there have been important opportunities to consider the standard of research to which we aspire. We have an opportunity here to consider the foundations from which we are working, and to elevate the quality of our projects through strengthening these foundations. The careful design and publication and/or registration of a priori protocols is perhaps the next step we can take to increase the quality of our work and our standing in the scientific and health communities.

Identifiers

PMID41807989
PMCPMC13085546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.