Topic summary

When a preprint is the best available evidence and we say so

Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size preprint Solved

This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 161, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.

microgramsTL2Regular27 Jul 2025#4

m.kjaer, post #3: This follows post #2 rather than contradicting it. Peer review as a filter: published papers have survived a review process that rejects many submissions. Preprints have not. Neither guarantees correctness, but publication history is a difference worth noting. Go to post

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

31 likes in reply to #3 12mo

sourced_claimsTL3Regular Solution29 Jul 2025#8

Check whether it was later published: searching for the preprint's first author and keywords in PubMed might find a published version. The published version is the stronger citation if it exists.

7 likes 12mo

bias_varianceTL4Biostatistician2 Aug 2025#18

np_gilmore, post #6: On post #2 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification. Server repositories: medRxiv for medicine, bioRxiv for biology. Preprints on these servers are time-stamped and have DOIs even if they are later published elsewhere. Citing the preprint with its DOI is appropriate while noting it is unpublished. Go to post

post #17 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

31 likes in reply to #6 12mo

d.magalhesTL2Member11 Aug 2025#46

mira.patel, post #38: Check whether it was later published: searching for the preprint's first author and keywords in PubMed might find a published version. The published version is the stronger citation if it exists. Go to post

Do not build anything on a preprint that you would mind rebuilding: if the preprint later changes substantially in revision or shows different results when published, your reasoning based on the preprint needs to be revised.

32 likes in reply to #38 12mo

cannula_notesTL2Member19 Aug 2025#73

Coming back to post #71, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Unrefereed work is not worthless. A great deal of it survives review substantially unchanged. It is also the case that the version appearing in a journal frequently has different numbers, and the changes are not random — they tend to be in the direction of a smaller effect and a more careful claim.

30 likes 11mo

v.baptistaTL2 Moderator22 Aug 2025#85

Server repositories: medRxiv for medicine, bioRxiv for biology. Preprints on these servers are time-stamped and have DOIs even if they are later published elsewhere. Citing the preprint with its DOI is appropriate while noting it is unpublished.

33 likes 11mo

n.oseiTL2 Moderator28 Aug 2025#109

How to cite a preprint: author last name, first initial, et al. Title. Server name [preprint]. Posted date. Doi. Include the server name and note that it is a preprint.

31 likes 11mo

r.lundgrenTL2 Moderator5 Sep 2025#141

On post #137 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

30 likes 11mo

m.stephanopoulosTL3Regular8 Sep 2025#155

v.szabo, post #67: Always label it as a preprint in any discussion. A preprint is not a published trial and it is not settled knowledge. Use it for hypothesis generation and for understanding emerging evidence, not for drawing definitive conclusions. Go to post

32 likes in reply to #67 11mo

Read the full topic (161 posts)

This topic was referenced in

[2026 update] Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citationEvidence › Preprints · 2 replies

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication Evidence › Preprints preprint needs a source effect size Wiki Closed A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: SURMOUNT-2 ( Lancet , 2023). Please read it before posting;…	+90	95	21k	9mo
How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work — the long version Evidence › Preprints needs a source effect size risk of bias Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work — the long version I have seen SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022) cited in support of a…	+18	23	21k	2mo
The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it — a second dataset Evidence › Preprints needs a source risk of bias preprint effect size The "under review" status pill and when a moderator applies it — a second dataset Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I have seen SURPASS-4 ( Lancet , 2021)…	+50	54	1.4k	11mo
Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part Evidence › Preprints needs a source risk of bias preprint effect size Why a preprint's supplementary material is often the best part I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Session topic: SUSTAIN 6 ( N Engl J Med , 2016). Please…	+38	42	863	22mo
Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation Evidence › Preprints risk of bias effect size needs a source On the subject in the title: Conference abstracts as evidence: the weakest common citation Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: SURMOUNT-1 ( N Engl J Med , 2022). Please read it before…	+1	5	2k	9mo

Related topics — sharing the tags risk of bias, effect size, preprint

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Random versus fixed effects: choosing rather than defaulting — a second dataset Evidence › Meta-analyses heterogeneity risk of bias publication bias On the subject in the title: Random versus fixed effects: choosing rather than defaulting — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Session topic: STEP 2 ( Lancet , 2021). Please read it…	+95	106	20k	17mo
Second pass at: Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove Evidence › Journal club number needed to treat risk of bias journal club effect size Second pass at: Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: SURMOUNT-OSA ( N Engl J Med ,…	+81	90	54k	9mo
An 18-month record including the parts that went badly Outcomes › Progress reports data table long read effect size DXA An 18-month record including the parts that went badly — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Longitudinal report with the method stated, because a number without a method is…	+77	81	17k	12h
A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication Evidence › Preprints preprint needs a source effect size Wiki Closed A preprint whose numbers changed substantially at publication — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Session topic: SURMOUNT-2 ( Lancet , 2023). Please read it before posting;…	+90	95	21k	9mo
BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not Compounds › Repair & healing peptides observational data preprint BPC-157 needs a source BPC-157: what the rodent literature actually shows, and what it does not — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I have seen LEADER ( N Engl J Med , 2016) cited in support of a…	+44	48	3k	10mo