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

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.

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.

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?

The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship
Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., et al. (2016) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18 · Cited by 18,423
Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide
Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687 · Cited by 10,548
Self-citation
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641 · cited 5×
“3 Researcher degrees of freedom The term ‘researcher degrees of freedom’ refers to the decisions made by a researcher from project conception to dissemination, all of which may shift the outcome and impact of the project, usually towards false positive discoveries [10].”
BackgroundInfluential
False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
Statistical power analysis
Cohen, J. (1992) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783 · Cited by 5,870
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702 · cited 2×
“Reports suggest that a substantial amount of published literature is likely to be biased [28], distorted [27,53], and non-reproducible [7,50].”
Background
A manifesto for reproducible science
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021 · Cited by 3,397
Promoting an open research culture
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., et al. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aab2374 · Cited by 2,708
Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Simera, I., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 · Cited by 1,437
Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research
Poldrack, R. A., Baker, C. I., Durnez, J., Gorgolewski, K. J., Matthews, P. M., Munafò, M. R., Nichols, T. E., Poline, J.-B., Vul, E., & Yarkoni, T. (2017) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.167 · Cited by 1,410
The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research
Freedman, L. P., Cockburn, I. M., & Simcoe, T. S. (2015) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165 · Cited by 1,055
Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste.
Macleod, M. R., Michie, S., Roberts, I., Dirnagl, U., Chalmers, I., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Salman, R. A.-S., Chan, A.-W., & Glasziou, P. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62329-6 · Cited by 1,003
Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results
Hopewell, S., Loudon, K., Clarke, M. J., Oxman, A. D., & Dickersin, K. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000006.pub3 · Cited by 898
The natural selection of bad science
Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.160384 · Cited by 860 · cited 2×
“5 prestige) are selected and passed from advisors to trainees, and across peers [68].”
Background
Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data
Fanelli, D. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271 · Cited by 805
How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed
McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., McDougall, D., Nosek, B. A., Ram, K., Soderberg, C. K., et al. (2016) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.16800 · Cited by 798
Degrees of Freedom in Planning, Running, Analyzing, and Reporting Psychological Studies: A Checklist to Avoid p-Hacking
Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L. S., Augusteijn, H. E. M., Bakker, M., van Aert, R. C. M., & van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01832 · Cited by 754
Registered Reports: A Method to Increase the Credibility of Published Results
Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014) · Social Psychology · doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000192 · Cited by 716 · cited 3×
“Registered reports and preregistration do not impede exploratory research, but they facilitate the distinction between exploratory and confirmatory research up front by giving researchers the opportunity to declare the nature of the work [49].”
Background
Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency
Kidwell, M. C., Lazarević, L. B., Baranski, E., Hardwicke, T. E., Piechowski, S., Falkenberg, L.-S., Kennett, C., Slowik, A., Sonnleitner, C., Hess-Holden, C., et al. (2016) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456 · Cited by 700
Academic research in the 21st century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition
Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017) · Environmental Engineering Science · doi:10.1089/ees.2016.0223 · Cited by 688
What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews?
Glasziou, P., Meats, E., Heneghan, C., & Shepperd, S. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39590.732037.47 · Cited by 614
Statistical Power, Sample Size, and Their Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials
Moher, D. (1994) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520020048013 · Cited by 608
Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network
Simera, I., Moher, D., Hirst, A., Hoey, J., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-24 · Cited by 590
Promoting Transparency in Social Science Research
Miguel, E. A., Camerer, C. F., Casey, K., Cohen, J., Esterling, K., Gerber, A. S., Glennerster, R., GREEN, D. P., Humphreys, M., Imbens, G. W., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1245317 · Cited by 559
Promoting Mentalizing in Pupils by Acting on Teachers: Preliminary Italian Evidence of the “Thought in Mind” Project
Valle, A., Massaro, D., Castelli, I., Intra, F. S., Lombardi, E., Bracaglia, E. A., & Marchetti, A. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01213 · Cited by 448
Publish or perish: Where are we heading?
Rawat, S., & Meena, S. (2014) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 389
Impact of Spin in the Abstracts of Articles Reporting Results of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Cancer: The SPIIN Randomized Controlled Trial
Boutron, I., Altman, D. G., Hopewell, S., Vera-Badillo, F., Tannock, I., & Ravaud, P. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2014.56.7503 · Cited by 368
Excess Significance Bias in the Literature on Brain Volume Abnormalities
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2011) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.28 · Cited by 299
Reproducible Epidemiologic Research
Peng, R. D., Dominici, F., & Zeger, S. L. (2006) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwj093 · Cited by 292
The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review
Morey, R. D., Chambers, C., Etchells, P. J., Harris, C. R., Hoekstra, R., Lakens, D., Lewandowsky, S., Morey, C. C., Newman, D. P., Schönbrodt, F. D., et al. (2016) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.150547 · Cited by 291
Perceptual confidence neglects decision-incongruent evidence in the brain
Peters, M. A. K., Thesen, T., Ko, Y., Maniscalco, B., Carlson, C., Davidson, M., Doyle, W., Kuzniecky, R., Devinsky, O., Halgren, E., et al. (2017) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0139 · Cited by 265
Adverse Events in Randomized Trials
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2009) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.313 · Cited by 241
Effect of editors' implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis
Hopewell, S., Ravaud, P., Baron, G., & Boutron, I. (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e4178 · Cited by 235
knitr: A Comprehensive Tool for Reproducible Research in R
Xie, Y. (2018) · Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781315373461-1 · Cited by 227
Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review
Zorzela, L., Golder, S., Liu, Y., Pilkington, K., Hartling, L., Joffe, A., Loke, Y., & Vohra, S. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f7668 · Cited by 217
Low statistical power in biomedical science: a review of three human research domains
Dumas-Mallet, E., Button, K. S., Boraud, T., Gonon, F., & Munafò, M. R. (2017) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.160254 · Cited by 208
Can screening instruments accurately determine poor outcome risk in adults with recent onset low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Karran, E. L., McAuley, J. H., Traeger, A. C., Hillier, S., Grabherr, L., Russek, L. N., & Moseley, G. L. (2017) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0774-4 · Cited by 181
Self-citation
Tools and techniques for computational reproducibility
Piccolo, S., & Frampton, M. (2016) · GigaScience · doi:10.1186/s13742-016-0135-4 · Cited by 179
Data Authorship as an Incentive to Data Sharing
Bierer, B. E., Crosas, M., & Pierce, H. H. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsb1616595 · Cited by 177
A purely confirmatory replication study of structural brain-behavior correlations
Boekel, W., Wagenmakers, E., Belay, L., Verhagen, J., Brown, S. D., & Forstmann, B. U. (2015) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2014.11.019 · Cited by 175
Registered Reports: Realigning incentives in scientific publishing
Chambers, C., Dienes, Z. P., McIntosh, R. D., Rotshtein, P., & Willmes, K. (2015) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.022 · Cited by 171
Cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth in woman at low risk of complications: evidence from the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study
Schroeder, L., Petrou, S., Patel, N. V., Hollowell, J., Puddicombe, D., Redshaw, M., Brocklehurst, P., & on behalf of the Birthplace in England Collaborative Group (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e2292 · Cited by 158
Data Sharing Statements for Clinical Trials — A Requirement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
Taichman, D. B., Sahni, P., Pinborg, A., Peiperl, L., Laine, C., James, A., Hong, S.-T., Haileamlak, A., Gollogly, L., Godlee, F., et al. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejme1705439 · Cited by 156
Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention
Lazarus, C., Haneef, R., Ravaud, P., & Boutron, I. (2015) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x · Cited by 137
Data Sharing
Bauchner, H., Golub, R. M., & Fontanarosa, P. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.2420 · Cited by 136
Olfactory Ensheathing Cell Transplantation in Experimental Spinal Cord Injury: Effect size and Reporting Bias of 62 Experimental Treatments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Watzlawick, R., Rind, J., Sena, E. S., Brommer, B., Zhang, T., Kopp, M. A., Dirnagl, U., Macleod, M. R., Howells, D. W., & Schwab, J. M. (2016) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002468 · Cited by 121
Ensuring transparency and minimization of methodologic bias in preclinical pain research
Andrews, N. A., Latrémolière, A., Basbaum, A. I., Mogil, J. S., Porreca, F., Rice, A. S. C., Woolf, C. J., Currie, G. L., Dworkin, R. H., Eisenach, J. C., et al. (2015) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000458 · Cited by 98
How can we implement exercise therapy for patellofemoral pain if we don’t know what was prescribed? A systematic review
Holden, S., Rathleff, M. S., Jensen, M. B., & Barton, C. J. (2017) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2017-097547 · Cited by 92
A statistical definition for reproducibility and replicabilityPreprint
Patil, P., Peng, R. D., & Leek, J. T. (2016) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/066803 · Cited by 90
Data Sharing from Clinical Trials — A Research Funder’s Perspective
Kiley, R., Peatfield, T., Hansen, J., & Reddington, F. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsb1708278 · Cited by 85 · cited 1×
“The value and ethical obligations of sharing raw data is well accepted by funders, journals, researchers, and consumers [32,71].”
Background
No publication without confirmation
Mogil, J. S., & Macleod, M. R. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/542409a · Cited by 76
Solving reproducibility
Buck, S. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac8041 · Cited by 72
The Use and Abuse of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Modulate Corticospinal Excitability in Humans
Héroux, M. E., Taylor, J. L., & Gandevia, S. C. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0144151 · Cited by 62
Spatially-defined motor deficits in people with unilateral complex regional pain syndrome
Reid, E., BRAITHWAITE, F., Wallwork, S. B., Harvie, D. S., Chalmers, J., Spence, C. J., Gallace, A., & Moseley, G. L. (2017) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2017.06.024 · Cited by 53
Self-citation
The distribution of P -values in medical research articles suggested selective reporting associated with statistical significance
Perneger, T., & Combescure, C. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.003 · Cited by 51
Quality of Pain Intensity Assessment Reporting: ACTTION Systematic Review and Recommendations
Smith, S. M., Hunsinger, M., McKeown, A., Parkhurst, M. L., Allen, R. R., Kopko, S., Lu, Y., Wilson, H., Burke, L. B., Desjardins, P. J., et al. (2015) · Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2015.01.004 · Cited by 43
Transparency in the reporting of in vivo pre-clinical pain research: The relevance and implications of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines
Rice, A. S. C., Morland, R., Huang, W., Currie, G. L., Sena, E. S., & Macleod, M. R. (2013) · Scandinavian Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.sjpain.2013.02.002 · Cited by 42
Reporting of Sample Size Calculations in Analgesic Clinical Trials: ACTTION Systematic Review
McKeown, A., Gewandter, J. S., McDermott, M., Pawlowski, J. R., Poli, J. J., Rothstein, D., Farrar, J. T., Gilron, I., Katz, N. P., Lin, A. H., et al. (2014) · Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2014.11.010 · Cited by 37
Discrepancies between registered and published primary outcome specifications in analgesic trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations
Smith, S. M., Wang, A. T., Pereira, A. C., Chang, D. R., McKeown, A., Greene, K. A., Rowbotham, M. C., Burke, L. B., COPLAN, P. M., Gilron, I., et al. (2013) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2013.08.011 · Cited by 34
Sharing clinical trial data
Taichman, D. B., Backus, J., Baethge, C., Bauchner, H., de Leeuw, P. W., Drazen, J. M., Fletcher, J., Frizelle, F., Groves, T., Haileamlak, A., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i255 · Cited by 29
Bridging the Data-Sharing Divide — Seeing the Devil in the Details, Not the Other Camp
Rosenbaum, L. R. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1704482 · Cited by 28
Simple decision-tree tool to facilitate author identification of reporting guidelines during submission: a before–after study
Shanahan, D. R., Sousa, I. L. D., & Marshall, D. M. (2017) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-017-0044-9 · Cited by 25
Neurosurgical Randomized Controlled Trials—Distance Travelled
Azad, T. D., Veeravagu, A., Mittal, V., Esparza, R., Johnson, E., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Grant, G. A. (2017) · Neurosurgery · doi:10.1093/neuros/nyx319 · Cited by 25
Sensory experience modifies feature map relationships in visual cortex
Cloherty, S. L., Hughes, N. J., Hietanen, M. A., Bhagavatula, P. S., Goodhill, G. J., & Ibbotson, M. R. (2016) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.13911 · Cited by 24
A review of data sharing statements in observational studies published in the BMJ: A cross-sectional study
McDonald, L., Schultze, A., Simpson, A., Graham, S., Wasiak, R., & Ramagopalan, S. V. (2017) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.12673.1 · Cited by 21
The case for publishing ‘negative’ clinical trials
Rowbotham, M. C. (2009) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.09.026 · Cited by 19
Antibiotics for back pain: hope or hype?
McCartney, M. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f3122 · Cited by 15
Registering clinical trials is necessary for ethical, scientific and economic reasons.
Antes, G. (2004) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · doi:10.1590/s0042-96862004000500003 · Cited by 11
Publishing code: an initiative to enhance transparency of data analyses reported in Journal of Physiotherapy
Herbert, R., & Elkins, M. R. (2017) · Journal of physiotherapy · doi:10.1016/j.jphys.2017.05.011 · Cited by 11
Trial Registration to Prevent Duplicate Publication
Antes, G., & Dickersin, K. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.20.2432-c · Cited by 9
Lack of data sharing in observational studies
McDonald, L., Schultze, A., Simpson, A., Graham, S., Wasiak, R., & Ramagopalan, S. V. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j4866 · Cited by 8
Publishing the best basic and applied pain science: open science and PAIN
Keefe, F. J., Ballantyne, J. C., Blyth, F., Coghill, R. C., Dickenson, A. H., Dionne, C. E., Eccleston, C., Finnerup, N. B., Kuner, R., Seminowicz, D. A., et al. (2018) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001166 · Cited by 6
Who needs registered reports?
Robertson, M. (2017) · BMC Biology · doi:10.1186/s12915-017-0394-2 · Cited by 3

Research works printed but not linked: 2

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

Sorted by citations

Exercise-induced hypoalgesia after acute and regular exercise: experimental and clinical manifestations and possible mechanisms in individuals with and without pain
Vægter, H. B., & Jones, M. D. (2020) · PAIN Reports · doi:10.1097/pr9.0000000000000823 · Cited by 223
Short-term impact of combining pain neuroscience education with exercise for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Siddall, B., Ram, A., Jones, M. D., Booth, J., Perriman, D., & Summers, S. J. (2022) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002308 · Cited by 174
The sensory and affective components of pain: are they differentially modifiable dimensions or inseparable aspects of a unitary experience? A systematic review
Talbot, K., Madden, V. J., Jones, S., & Moseley, G. L. (2019) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1016/j.bja.2019.03.033 · Cited by 171
Self-citation
Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia in Healthy Individuals and People With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Wewege, M. A., & Jones, M. D. (2020) · Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2020.04.003 · Cited by 133
Using PROGRESS-plus to identify current approaches to the collection and reporting of equity-relevant data: a scoping review
Karran, E. L., Cashin, A. G., Barker, T., Boyd, M. A., Chiarotto, A., Dewidar, O., Mohabir, V., Petkovic, J., Sharma, S., Tejani, S., et al. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.09.017 · Cited by 96
Self-citation

See all 150

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: Lee, Hopin
Lamb, Sarah E.
Bagg, Matthew K.
Toomey, Elaine
Cashin, Aidan G.
Moseley, G. Lorimer
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: green
hdl.handle.net
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

Reproducible and replicable pain research: a critical review

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks