CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 150Academic Publishing and Open AccessMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAnimal testing and alternatives

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reproducible and replicable pain research: a critical review

Open access
Lee, Hopin, Lamb, Sarah E., Bagg, Matthew K., Toomey, Elaine, Cashin, Aidan G., Moseley, G. Lorimer·2018·Pain
DOI 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001254
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recently, the degree to which scientific publications provide a reliable source of information has come under intense scrutiny. Reports suggest that a substantial amount of published literature is likely to be biased,28 distorted,27,53 and nonreproducible.7,50 This cuts across basic,10,55 preclinical,1,16 and clinical research.4,50 Although controversial, some have claimed that nonreproducible preclinical research consumes $28 billion/year (USD)16 and that 85% of biomedical research resources are wasted on biased research.35 The response from the scientific and policy community has been to identify common practices that contribute to the problem and develop methods to counteract them.47 This matter is very relevant to the pain field.1 Understanding the causes of nonreproducible and nonreplicable research and its ultimate impact on how we prevent and treat pain should assist pain researchers to improve the reproducibility and replicability of their work. The distinction between reproducibility and replicability is presented in Figure 1 and defined elsewhere.51 This article aims to: (1) outline the drivers of nonreproducible and nonreplicable research using examples from pain sciences and broader research fields; and (2) provide an overview of potential solutions and practices that could improve the reproducibility and replicability of pain research.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001254

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 76 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Gewandter, 2017, Checklist for the preparation and review of pain clinical trial publications, PAIN Rep, 0, 1
  2. Moseley, 2013, Finding the love between scientists and clinicians—a response to Dr Butler on noijam, BodyinMind

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–150 of 150

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lee, H., Lamb, S. E., Bagg, M. K., Toomey, E., Cashin, A. G., & Moseley, G. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
  • University of South Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Lee, Hopin
ORCID
Venue
Pain
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2018-04-23
Volume
159
Issue
9
Pages
1683-1689
ISSN
  • 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
  • 1872-6623
DOI
10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001254
OpenAlex
W2802823940
Cited by
150
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3
FWCI
24.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ARAN (University of Galway Research Repository) (Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ARAN (University of Galway Research Repository) (Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0611-10020)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
Keywords
reproducibility, replicability, pain research, research bias, research waste, replication crisis, research practices, preclinical research, research integrity
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Pain, Research Design, Statistics as Topic

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