REAPPRAISED Checklist

Are the locations where the research took place specified, and is this information plausible?

Is a funding source reported?

Has the study been registered?

Are details such as dates and study methods in the publication consistent with those in the registration documents?

Is there evidence that the work has been approved by a specific, recognized committee?

Are there any concerns about unethical practice?

Do all authors meet criteria for authorship?

Are contributorship statements present?

Are contributorship statements complete?

Is authorship of related papers consistent?

Can co-authors attest to the reliability of the paper?

Is the volume of work reported by research group plausible, including that indicated by concurrent studies from the same group?

Is the reported staffing adequate for the study conduct as reported?

Is there evidence of copied work?

Is there evidence of text recycling (cutting and pasting text between papers), including text that is inconsistent with the study?

Is the recruitment of participants plausible within the stated time frame for the research?

Is the recruitment of participants plausible considering the epidemiology of the disease in the area of the study location?

Do the numbers of animals purchased and housed align with numbers in the publication?

Is the number of participant withdrawals compatible with the disease, age and timeline?

Is the number of participant deaths compatible with the disease, age and timeline?

Is the interval between study completion and manuscript submission plausible?

Could the study plausibly be completed as described?

Are the study methods plausible, at the location specified?

Have the correct analyses been undertaken and reported?

Is there evidence of poor methodology, including:

‘P-hacking’: biased or selective analyses that promote fragile results

Other unacknowledged multiple statistical testing

Is there outcome switching — that is, do the analysis and discussion focus on measures other than those specified in registered analysis plans?

Is there evidence of manipulation or duplication of images?

Are any data impossible?

Are subgroup means incompatible with those for the whole cohort?

Are the reported summary data compatible with the reported range?

Are the summary outcome data identical across study groups?

Are there any discrepancies between data reported in figures, tables and text?

Are statistical test results compatible with reported data

Are any data implausible?

Are any of the baseline data excessively similar or different between randomized groups?

Are any of the outcome data unexpected outliers?

Are the frequencies of the outcomes unusual?

Are any data outside the expected range for sex, age or disease?

Are there any discrepancies between the values for percentage and absolute change?

Are there any discrepancies between reported data and participant inclusion criteria?

Are the variances in biological variables surprisingly consistent over time?

Are correct units reported?

Are numbers of participants correct and consistent throughout the publication?

Are calculations of proportions and percentages correct

Are results internally consistent?

Are the results of statistical testing internally consistent and plausible?

Are other data errors present?

Are there typographical errors?

Have the data been published elsewhere?

Is any duplicate reporting acknowledged or explained

How many data are duplicate reported?

Are duplicate-reported data consistent between publications?

Are relevant methods consistent between publications?

Is there evidence of duplication of figures?