Biology subjects

Tritz, D.

Publications and source records attributed to Tritz, D..

7 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2019

Transparent and Reproducible Research Practices in the Surgical Literature

Previous studies have established a baseline of minimal reproducibility in the social science and biomedical literature. Clinical research is especially deficient in factors of reproducibility. Surgical journals contain fewer clinical trials than non-surgical ones, suggesting that it should be easier to reproduce the outcomes of surgical literature. In this study, we evaluated a broad range of indicators related to transparency and reproducibility in a random sample of 300 articles published in surgery-related journals between 2014 and 2018. A minority of our sample made available their materials (2/186, 95% C.I. 0-2.2%), protocols (1/196, 0-1.3%), data (19/196, 6.3-13%), or analysis scripts (0/196, 0-1.9%). Only one study was adequately pre-registered. No studies were explicit replications of previous literature. Most studies (162/292 50-61%) declined to provide a funding statement, and few declared conflicts of interest (22/292, 4.8-11%). Most have not been cited by systematic reviews (183/216, 81-89%) or meta-analyses (188/216, 83-91%), and most were behind a paywall (187/292, 58-70%). The transparency of surgical literature could improve with adherence to baseline standards of reproducibility.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

Evaluation of Reproducible and Transparent Research Practices in Sports Medicine Research: A Cross-sectional study

BackgroundIn recent years, urgency has been placed on the \"reproducibility crisis\" facing biomedical research. Despite efforts toward improvement, certain elements needed to reproduce a study are often lacking from publications. The current state of reproducibility within the sports medicine research community remains unknown.\n\nPurposeOur study sought to evaluate the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency to determine the current state of research reporting in sports medicine research.\n\nStudy DesignCross-sectional review\n\nMethodsUsing the National Library of Medicine catalog, we identified 41 MEDLINE-indexed, English language sports medicine journals. From the 41 journals, we randomly sampled 300 publications that were recorded on PubMed as being published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. Two investigators extracted data in duplicate and blinded fashion.\n\nResultsOf the 300 publications sampled, 280 were accessible and were screened for empirical data. Studies that lack empirical data were excluded from our analysis. Of the remaining 195 with empirical data, 10 (5.13%) publications provided data availability statements, 1 (0.51%) provided a protocol, 0 (0.0%) provided an analysis script, and 9 (4.62%) were pre registered.\n\nConclusionReproducibility and transparency indicators are lacking in sports medicine publications. The majority of publications lack the necessary resources for reproducibility such as material, data, analysis scripts, or protocol availability. While the current state of reproducibility cannot be fixed overnight, we feel combined efforts of data sharing, open access, and verifying disclosure statements can help to improve overall reporting.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

Evaluation of Reproducibility in Urology Publications

Take Home MessageMany components of transparency and reproducibility are lacking in urology publications, making study replication, at best, difficult.\n\nIntroductionReproducibility is essential for the integrity of scientific research. Reproducibility is measured by the ability of investigators to replicate the outcomes of an original publication by using the same materials and procedures.\n\nMethodsWe sampled 300 publications in the field of urology for assessment of multiple indicators of reproducibility, including material availability, raw data availability, analysis script availability, pre-registration information, links to protocols, and whether the publication was freely available to the public. Publications were also assessed for statements about conflicts of interest and funding sources.\n\nResultsOf the 300 sample publications, 171 contained empirical data and could be analyzed for reproducibility. Of the analyzed articles, 0.58% (1/171) provided links to protocols, and none of the studies provided analysis scripts. Additionally, 95.91% (164/171) did not provide accessible raw data, 97.53% (158/162) did not provide accessible materials, and 95.32% (163/171) did not state they were pre-registered.\n\nConclusionCurrent urology research does not consistently provide the components needed to reproduce original studies. Collaborative efforts from investigators and journal editors are needed to improve research quality, while minimizing waste and patient risk.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

An evaluation of Nephrology Literature for Transparency and Reproducibility Indicators: Cross-sectional Review

BackgroundReproducibility is critical to diagnostic accuracy and treatment implementation. Concurrent with clinical reproducibility, research reproducibility establishes whether the use of identical study materials and methodologies in replication efforts permit researchers to arrive at similar results and conclusions. In this study, we address this gap by evaluating nephrology literature for common indicators of transparent and reproducible research.\n\nMethodsWe searched the National Library of Medicine catalog to identify 36 MEDLINE-indexed, English language nephrology journals. We randomly sampled 300 publications published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. In a duplicated and blinded fashion, two investigators screened and extracted data from the 300 publications.\n\nResultsOur search yielded 28,835 publications, of which we randomly sampled 300 publications. Of the 300 publications, 152 (50.67%) were publicly available whereas 143 (47.67%) were restricted through paywall and 5 (1.67%) were inaccessible. Of the remaining 295 publications, 123 were excluded because they lack empirical data necessary for reproducibility. Of the 172 publications with empirical data, 43 (25%) reported data availability statements, 4 (2.33%) analysis scripts, 4 (2.33%) links to a protocol, and 10 (5.81%) were pre-registered.\n\nConclusionOur study found that reproducible and transparent research practices are infrequently employed by the nephrology research community. Greater efforts should be made by both funders and journals, two entities that have the greatest ability to influence change. In doing so, an open science culture may eventually become the norm rather than the exception.

bioinformatics↗

bioRxiv2019

Analysis of Practices to Promote Reproducibility and Transparency in Anaesthesiology Research: Are Important Aspects Hidden Behind the Drapes?

IntroductionReliable, high-quality research is essential to the field of anaesthesiology. Reproducibility and transparency has been investigated in the biomedical domain and in the social sciences, with both lacking to provide necessary information to reproduce the study findings. In this study, we investigated 14 indicators of reproducibility in anaesthesiology research.\n\nMethodsWe used the National Library of Medicine (NLM) catalogue to search for all anaesthesiology journals that are MEDLINE indexed and provided English texts. PubMed was searched with the list of journals to identify all publications from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018. We randomly sampled 300 publications that fit the inclusion criteria for our analysis. Data extraction was then conducted in a blinded, duplicate fashion using a pilot-tested Google form.\n\nResultsThe PubMed search of these journals identified 171,441 publications, with 28,310 being within the time frame. From the 300 publications sampled, 296 full-text publications were accessible. Most of the studies did not include materials or protocol availability statements. The majority of publications did not provide a data analysis script statement (121/122, 99% [98% to 100%]) or a preregistration statement (94/122, 77% [72% to 81%]).\n\nConclusionAnaesthesiology research needs to drastically improve indicators of reproducibility and transparency. By making research publically available and improving accessibility to detailed study components, primary research can be reproduced in subsequent studies and help contribute to the development of new practice guidelines.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

Evaluation of Reproducible and Transparent Research Practices in Pulmonology

RationaleStudy reproducibility is valuable for validating or refuting results. Provision of reproducibility indicators, such as materials, protocols, and raw data in a study to improve its potential for reproduction. Efforts to reproduce noteworthy studies in the biomedical sciences have resulted in an overwhelming majority of them being found to be unreplicable, causing concern for the integrity of research in other fields, including medical specialities.\n\nObjectiveHere, we analyzed the reproducibility of studies in the field of pulmonology.\n\nMethods300 pulmonology articles were randomly selected from an initial PubMed search for data extraction. Two authors scoured these articles for reproducibility indicators including materials, protocols, raw data, analysis scripts, inclusion in systematic reviews, and citations by replication studies as well as other factors of research transparency including open accessibility, funding source and competing interest disclosures, and study preregistration.\n\nMain ResultsFew publications included statements regarding materials (11%), protocols (1%), data (21%), and analysis script (0%) availability. Less than 10% indicated preregistration. More than half of the publications analyzed failed to provide a funding statement. Conversely, 66% of the publications were open access and 70% included a conflict of interest statement.\n\nConclusionOverall, our study indicates pulmonology research is currently lacking in efforts to increase replicability. Future studies should focus on providing sufficient information regarding materials, protocols, raw data, and analysis scripts, among other indicators, for the sake of clinical decisions that depend on replicable or refutable results from the primary literature.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

Can Orthopaedics become the Gold Standard for Reproducibility? A Roadmap to Success

BackgroundScientific research is replete with poor accessibility to data, materials, and protocol, which limits the reproducibility of a study. Transparency with regard to materials, protocols, and raw data sets enhances reproducibility by providing the critical information necessary to verify, replicate, and resynthesize research findings. The extent to which transparency and reproducibility exist in the field of orthopaedics is unclear. In our study, we aimed to evaluate transparency and reproducibility-related characteristics of randomly sampled publications in orthopaedic journals.\n\nMethodsWe used the National Library of Medicine catalog to identify English language and MEDLINE-indexed orthopaedic journals. From the 74 journals meeting our inclusion criteria, we randomly sampled 300 publications using a refined PubMed search that were published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. Two investigators were trained for data extraction and analysis. Both investigators were blinded and independently extracted data from the 300 studies.\n\nResultsOur initial search yielded 68,102 publications, from which we drew a random sample of 300 publications. Of these 300 publications, 286 were screened for empirical data and 14 were inaccessible. For analysis purposes, we excluded publications without empirical data. Of the 182 with empirical data, 13 studies (7.1%) included a data availability statement, 9 (4.9%) reported materials were available, none (0.0%) provided analysis scripts, 2 (1.1%) provided access to the protocol used, 5 (2.7%) were preregistered, and only 2 (1.1%) provided a statement about being a replicated study.\n\nConclusionsComponents necessary for reproducibility are lacking in orthopaedic surgery journals. The vast majority of publications did not provide data or material availability statements, protocols, or analysis scripts, and had no preregistration statements. Intervention is needed to improve reproducibility in the field of orthopaedics. The current state of reproducibility in orthopaedic surgery could be improved by combined efforts from funding agencies, authors, peer reviewers, and journals alike.\n\nLevel of EvidenceN/A

scientific communication and education↗