TY - JOUR
T1 - An evaluation of the practice of transparency and reproducibility in addiction medicine literature
AU - Adewumi, Mopileola Tomi
AU - Vo, Nam
AU - Tritz, Daniel
AU - Beaman, Jason
AU - Vassar, Matt
N1 - Funding Information:
About 25% of the examined studies did not include any statement about funding sources. Funding is not always required to conduct research; however, when the research is funded by entities who stand to gain from the study’s results, problems may ensue. Consider Kearns et al. (2016) who re-evaluated a literature review funded by the Sugar Research Foundation that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The review down-played the role of sugar consumption as a risk factor for coronary heart disease and instead emphasized dietary fats as being more critical and encouraged a low-fat diet. The role of the Sugar Research Foundation was not disclosed in the review. Recommendations from this review included decreasing consumption of foods high in fat content with the public choosing sugar containing foods in place of food high in fat ( Kearns et al., 2016 ). Similar concerns about research funding have been noted in addiction research. Miller et al. surveyed 322 authors that published in Addiction from 2004 to 2009. Of these authors, 117 (36%) reported experiencing interference from funders. These 117 authors reported 129 funder-mandated changes to parts of publications such as the study design (17/23, 74%), data management (5/9, 56%), data analysis (13/21, 62%), wording (40/57, 70%), and dissemination of findings (29/45, 64%) ( Miller et al., 2017 ). These findings demonstrate the funders’ broad influence on the study design and outcome manipulation. Deception in funding sources has also occurred in the tobacco industry. A review of the tactics employed by the tobacco industry to influence research found that funding sources were either omitted or given alternative titles. In addition, the tobacco industry founded groups such as The Center for Tobacco Research or Center for Indoor Air Research solely to funnel money toward improving the public trust in the industry and its perception of tobacco products ( Bero, 2005 ). Both of these examples are relevant to the addiction medicine literature because alcohol and tobacco use are common research topics. Although not all funding sources have an ulterior motive, the possibility requires improved vetting of funding sources by the government, journals, and authors alike.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2021/1
Y1 - 2021/1
N2 - Background: Credible research emphasizes transparency, openness, and reproducibility. These characteristics are fundamental to promoting and maintaining research integrity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of reproducibility in the field of addiction science. Design: Cross-sectional design. Measurements: The National Library of Medicine catalog was searched for all journals using the subject terms tag: Substance-Related Disorders [ST]. Journals were then searched via PubMed to identify publications from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018; 300 publications were randomly selected from among those identified. A pilot-tested Google form containing reproducibility/transparency characteristics was used for data extraction in a duplicated and blinded fashion by two investigators. Findings: Slightly more than half of the publications were open access (152/300, 50.70%). Few publications had pre-registration (7/244, 2.87%), material availability (2/237, 0.84%), protocol availability (3/244, 1.23%), data availability (28/244, 11.48%), or analysis script availability (2/244, 0.82%). Most publications provided a conflict of interest statement (221/293, 75.43%) and funding sources (268/293, 91.47%). One replication study was reported (1/244, 0.4%). Conclusion: Our study found that current practices that promote transparency and reproducibility are lacking, thus, there is room for improvement. In particular, investigators should pre-register studies prior to commencement. Researchers should also make the materials, data, and analysis script publicly available. Further, individuals should be transparent about funding sources for the project and financial conflicts of interest. Research stakeholders should work together toward improvements on these matters. With such protections, the field of addiction medicine can better disseminate the information necessary to treat patients.
AB - Background: Credible research emphasizes transparency, openness, and reproducibility. These characteristics are fundamental to promoting and maintaining research integrity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of reproducibility in the field of addiction science. Design: Cross-sectional design. Measurements: The National Library of Medicine catalog was searched for all journals using the subject terms tag: Substance-Related Disorders [ST]. Journals were then searched via PubMed to identify publications from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018; 300 publications were randomly selected from among those identified. A pilot-tested Google form containing reproducibility/transparency characteristics was used for data extraction in a duplicated and blinded fashion by two investigators. Findings: Slightly more than half of the publications were open access (152/300, 50.70%). Few publications had pre-registration (7/244, 2.87%), material availability (2/237, 0.84%), protocol availability (3/244, 1.23%), data availability (28/244, 11.48%), or analysis script availability (2/244, 0.82%). Most publications provided a conflict of interest statement (221/293, 75.43%) and funding sources (268/293, 91.47%). One replication study was reported (1/244, 0.4%). Conclusion: Our study found that current practices that promote transparency and reproducibility are lacking, thus, there is room for improvement. In particular, investigators should pre-register studies prior to commencement. Researchers should also make the materials, data, and analysis script publicly available. Further, individuals should be transparent about funding sources for the project and financial conflicts of interest. Research stakeholders should work together toward improvements on these matters. With such protections, the field of addiction medicine can better disseminate the information necessary to treat patients.
KW - Addiction
KW - Evidence-based research
KW - Open access
KW - Replication
KW - Reproducibility
KW - Transparency
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088921103&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106560
DO - 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106560
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32763621
AN - SCOPUS:85088921103
SN - 0306-4603
VL - 112
JO - Addictive Behaviors
JF - Addictive Behaviors
M1 - 106560
ER -