A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations


Background: Reproducibility is essential for the integrity of scientific research. Reproducibility is measured by the ability of different investigators to replicate the outcomes of an original publication using the same materials and procedures. Unfortunately, reproducibility is not currently a standard being met by most scientific research. Methods: For this review, we sampled 300 publications in the field of urology to assess for 14 indicators of reproducibility including material availability, raw data availability, analysis script availability, pre-registration information, links to protocols, and if the publication was available free to the public. Publications were also assessed for statements about conflicts of interest and funding sources. Results: Of the 300 sample publications, 171 contained empirical data available for analysis of reproducibility. Of the 171 articles with empirical data to analyze, 0.58% provided links to protocols, 4.09% provided access to raw data, 3.09% provided access to materials, and 4.68% were pre-registered. None of the studies provided analysis scripts. Our review is cross-sectional in nature, including only PubMed indexed journals-published in English-and within a finite time period. Thus, our results should be interpreted in light of these considerations. Conclusion: Current 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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number102
JournalBMC Urology
Issue number1
StatePublished - Dec 2022


  • Replicability
  • Reproducibility
  • Transparency
  • Urologic research
  • Urology


Dive into the research topics of 'A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this