Cited by 186Spinal Cord Injury ResearchAnimal testing and alternativesMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies

Replication and reproducibility in spinal cord injury research

Steward, Oswald, Popovich, Phillip G., Dietrich, W. Dalton, Kleitman, Naomi·2012·Experimental Neurology

Abstract

This special issue of Experimental Neurology compiles a series of papers that either explicitly replicate published studies or retest phenomena reported in previous publications. The explicit replications were carried out as part of the "Facilities of Research Excellence-Spinal Cord Injury" (FORE-SCI) program launched by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) in 2003. Here, we review the FORE-SCI replication experiments published prior to those in this special issue. We then discuss emerging issues regarding replication and reproducibility in spinal cord injury research, especially in terms of potential translation to clinical trials.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.expneurol.2011.06.017

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Of 12 replications of preclinical spinal cord injury research in the FORE-SCI program, only two clearly replicated the original findings.

    “Of 12 replications of preclinical spinal cord injury research in the FORE-SCI program, only two clearly replicated the original findings”

    From Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology (2021) · cites this paper as Steward et al., 2012

  • The low replication success rates and small effect sizes we found reinforce prior calls for improving rigor and transparency of preclinical research to improve allocation of limited resources and protect human participants from trials based on weak evidence.

    “The low replication success rates and small effect sizes we found reinforce prior calls for improving the rigor and transparency of preclinical research to improve the allocation of limited resources and to protect human participants from being enrolled in trials that are based on weak evidence”

    From Investigating the replicability of preclinical cancer biology (2021) · cites this paper as Steward et al., 2012

  • Randomization and blinding of investigators who analyse the results of animal experiments are used in less than 20% of studies.

    “Some pivotal aspects of study design, such as randomization and the blinding of investigators who analyse the results of animal experiments, are used in less than 20% of studies16–18”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Steward, O., Popovich, P. G., Dietrich, W. D., & Kleitman, N.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Steward, Oswald
Venue
Experimental Neurology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-02
Volume
233
Issue
2
Pages
597-605
ISSN
0014-4886 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2085512194
Cited by
186
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
FWCI
10.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Experimental Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • N01-NS-3-2353
  • HHSN271200800039C
  • HHSN271200800040C
  • N01-NS-3-2352
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Keywords
spinal cord injury, replication study, reproducibility, clinical translation, translational research, research reproducibility
MeSH terms
Humans, Pilot Projects, Spinal Cord Injuries, Reproducibility of Results, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review