Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41375854›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2025

Meta-Research in Neuroscience: An Urgent Call to Strengthen the Reliability and Translation of Knowledge into Evidence-Based Neurological Practice.

Ivan David Lozada-Martinez, Luis Miguel Delgado Arias, Diana Marcela Perea Rojas, Indiana Luz Rojas Torres

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

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

4 authors.

Ivan David Lozada-MartinezBiomedical Scientometrics and Evidence-Based Research Unit, Department of Health Sciences, Universidad de la Costa, Barranquilla 080002, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0002-1960-7334
Luis Miguel Delgado AriasFacultad de Ciencias para la Salud, Universidad de Manizales, Manizales 170001, Colombia.
Diana Marcela Perea RojasFaculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Barranquilla 080003, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0001-8821-6428
Indiana Luz Rojas TorresFacultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Centro de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Vida, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Barranquilla 080003, Colombia.

Funding

Universidad Simón Bolívar 2025
6 · The paper itself

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

evidence-based practiceevidence gapsmeta-researchneurosciencesresearch design

Identifiers

PMID41375854
PMCPMC12693178

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.