ArticleBritish journal of anaesthesia2019
Independent discussion sections for improving inferential reproducibility in published research.
Article in British journal of anaesthesia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Opioid analgesic dose and route conversion ratio studies: a scoping review to inform an eDelphi guideline.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Automatic categorization of self-acknowledged limitations in randomized controlled trial publications.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
- Spin within systematic review abstracts on antiplatelet therapies after acute coronary syndrome: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Accepting the baton at the Journal: a moment to celebrate success, science, diversity, and future opportunities.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2021Article
- Electroencephalography-guided anaesthetic administration does not impact postoperative delirium among older adults undergoing major surgery: an independent discussion of the ENGAGES trial.British journal of anaesthesia · 2019Article
- Who watches the watchmen and the problem of recursive flea bites.British journal of anaesthesia · 2019Article
- Hypnotic depth and postoperative death: a Bayesian perspective and an Independent Discussion of a clinical trial.British journal of anaesthesia · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a reproducibility crisis in science. There are many potential contributors to replication failure in research across the translational continuum. In this perspective piece, we focus on the narrow topic of inferential reproducibility. Although replication of methods and results is necessary to demonstrate reproducibility, it is not sufficient. Also fundamental is consistent interpretation in the Discussion section. Current deficiencies in the Discussion sections of manuscripts might limit the inferential reproducibility of scientific research. Lack of contextualisation using systematic reviews, overinterpretation and misinterpretation of results, and insufficient acknowledgement of limitations are common problems in Discussion sections; these deficiencies can harm the translational process. Proposed solutions include eliminating or not reading Discussions, writing accompanying editorials, and post-publication review and comments; however, none of these solutions works very well. A second Discussion written by an independent author with appropriate expertise in research methodology is a new testable solution that could help probe inferential reproducibility, and address some deficiencies in primary Discussion sections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.