Biology subjects

Fladie, I.

Publications and source records attributed to Fladie, I..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

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

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↗