Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41989990›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2026

An international consensus on core reproducibility items in research.

Rita Banzi, Monika Varga, Yuri Andrei Gelsleichter, Constant Vinatier, David Moher, Florian Naudet, OSIRIS-Delphi Study Group

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Rita BanziLaboratory for Health Regulatory Policies, Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research IRCCS, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2211-3300
Monika VargaInstitute of Animal Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Kaposvar, Hungary.
Yuri Andrei GelsleichterDepartment of Soil Science, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Gödöllő, Hungary.
Constant VinatierUniversité de Rennes, CHU de Rennes, Inserm, EHESP (école de hautes études en santé publique), Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail), Centre d'investigation clinique de Rennes (CIC1414), Rennes,   France.
David MoherSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa and Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Florian NaudetUniversité de Rennes, CHU de Rennes, Inserm, EHESP (école de hautes études en santé publique), Irset (Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail), Centre d'investigation clinique de Rennes (CIC1414), Rennes,   France.
OSIRIS-Delphi Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence-based solutions are needed to help improve reproducibility in research. This Consensus View presents a consensus-based list of core reproducibility items for research that has been developed by a multidisciplinary group interested in research, open science, and reproducibility. The set of minimum requirements presented here outlines core expectations regarding planning, methods, data collection, management and analysis, and dissemination. This tool aims to improve the reproducibility of methods and results throughout all phases of the research process and, more generally, to promote a broader cultural shift toward transparent, reliable research.

Indexed as

Research DesignConsensusConsensus Statements as TopicData CollectionHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID41989990
PMCPMC13086321

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.