Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Glasziou, P. P.

Publications and source records attributed to Glasziou, P. P..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Taxonomy of interventions at academic institutions to improve research quality

Research institutions and researchers have become increasingly concerned about poor research reproducibility and replicability, and research waste more broadly. Research institutions play an important role and understanding their intervention options is important. This review aims to identify and classify possible interventions to improve research quality, reduce waste, and improve reproducibility and replicability within research-performing institutions. Taxonomy development steps: 1) use of an exemplar paper of journal-level research quality improvement interventions, 2) 2-stage search in PubMed using seed and exemplar articles, and forward and backward citation searching to identify articles evaluating or describing research quality improvement, 3) elicited draft taxonomy feedback from researchers at an open-sciences conference workshop, and 4) cycles of revisions from the research team. The search identified 11 peer-reviewed articles on relevant interventions. Overall, 93 interventions were identified from peer-review literature and researcher reporting. Interventions covered before, during, and after study conduct research stages and whole of institution. Types of intervention included: Tools, Education & Training, Incentives, Modelling & Mentoring, Review & Feedback, Expert involvement, and Policies & Procedures. Identified areas for research institutions to focus on to improve research quality and for further research includes improving incentives to implement quality research practices, evaluating current interventions, encourage no- or low-cost/high-benefit interventions, examine institution research culture, and encourage mentor-mentee relationships.

scientific communication and education↗

Statistical power of clinical trials has increased whilst effect size remained stable: an empirical analysis of 137 032 clinical trials between 1975-2017

BackgroundBiomedical studies with low statistical power are a major concern in the scientific community and are one of the underlying reasons for the reproducibility crisis in science. If randomized clinical trials, which are considered the backbone of evidence-based medicine, also suffer from low power, this could affect medical practice.\n\nMethodsWe analysed the statistical power in 137 032 clinical trials between 1975 and 2017 extracted from meta-analyses from the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. We determined study power to detect standardized effect sizes according to Cohen, and in meta-analysis with p-value below 0.05 we based power on the meta-analysed effect size. Average power, effect size and temporal patterns were examined.\n\nResultsThe number of trials with power [≥]80% was low but increased over time: from 9% in 1975-1979 to 15% in 2010-2014. This increase was mainly due to increasing sample sizes, whilst effect sizes remained stable with a median Cohens h of 0.21 (IQR 0.12-0.36) and a median Cohens d of 0.31 (0.19-0.51). The proportion of trials with power of at least 80% to detect a standardized effect size of 0.2 (small), 0.5 (moderate) and 0.8 (large) was 7%, 48% and 81%, respectively.\n\nConclusionsThis study demonstrates that sufficient power in clinical trials is still problematic, although the situation is slowly improving. Our data encourages further efforts to increase statistical power in clinical trials to guarantee rigorous and reproducible evidence-based medicine.

epidemiology↗