TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of indicators supporting reproducibility and transparency within cardiology literature
AU - Anderson, J. Michael
AU - Wright, Bryan
AU - Rauh, Shelby
AU - Tritz, Daniel
AU - Horn, Jarryd
AU - Parker, Ian
AU - Bergeron, Daniel
AU - Cook, Sharolyn
AU - Vassar, Matt
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding Funding for the completion of this study was provided through the 2019 Presidential Research Fellowship Mentor – Mentee Program at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences.
Funding Information:
Competing interests MV has received grants from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity, and grants from the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology, outside the submitted work.
Publisher Copyright:
©
PY - 2021/1/1
Y1 - 2021/1/1
N2 - Objectives It has been suggested that biomedical research is facing a reproducibility issue, yet the extent of reproducible research within the cardiology literature remains unclear. Thus, our main objective was to assess the quality of research published in cardiology journals by assessing for the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency. Methods Using a cross-sectional study design, we conducted an advanced search of the National Library of Medicine catalogue for publications in cardiology journals. We included publications published between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2019. After the initial list of eligible cardiology publications was generated, we searched for full-text PDF versions using Open Access, Google Scholar and PubMed. Using a pilot-tested Google Form, a random sample of 532 publications were assessed for the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency. Results A total of 232 eligible publications were included in our final analysis. The majority of publications (224/232, 96.6%) did not provide access to complete and unmodified data sets, all 229/232 (98.7%) failed to provide step-by-step analysis scripts and 228/232 (98.3%) did not provide access to complete study protocols. Conclusions The presentation of studies published in cardiology journals would make reproducing study outcomes challenging, at best. Solutions to increase the reproducibility and transparency of publications in cardiology journals is needed. Moving forward, addressing inadequate sharing of materials, raw data and key methodological details might help to better the landscape of reproducible research within the field.
AB - Objectives It has been suggested that biomedical research is facing a reproducibility issue, yet the extent of reproducible research within the cardiology literature remains unclear. Thus, our main objective was to assess the quality of research published in cardiology journals by assessing for the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency. Methods Using a cross-sectional study design, we conducted an advanced search of the National Library of Medicine catalogue for publications in cardiology journals. We included publications published between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2019. After the initial list of eligible cardiology publications was generated, we searched for full-text PDF versions using Open Access, Google Scholar and PubMed. Using a pilot-tested Google Form, a random sample of 532 publications were assessed for the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency. Results A total of 232 eligible publications were included in our final analysis. The majority of publications (224/232, 96.6%) did not provide access to complete and unmodified data sets, all 229/232 (98.7%) failed to provide step-by-step analysis scripts and 228/232 (98.3%) did not provide access to complete study protocols. Conclusions The presentation of studies published in cardiology journals would make reproducing study outcomes challenging, at best. Solutions to increase the reproducibility and transparency of publications in cardiology journals is needed. Moving forward, addressing inadequate sharing of materials, raw data and key methodological details might help to better the landscape of reproducible research within the field.
KW - research approaches
KW - statistics and study design
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090112238&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-316519
DO - 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-316519
M3 - Article
C2 - 32826286
AN - SCOPUS:85090112238
SN - 1355-6037
VL - 107
SP - 120
EP - 126
JO - Heart
JF - Heart
IS - 2
ER -