bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Rauh, S. L.

Publications and source records attributed to Rauh, S. L..

2 recordsLinked to original sources
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

Reproducible and Transparent Research Practices in Published Neurology Research

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate the nature and extent of reproducible and transparent research practices in neurology research.\n\nMethodsThe NLM catalog was used to identify MEDLINE-indexed neurology journals. A PubMed search of these journals was conducted to retrieve publications over a 5-year period from 2014 to 2018. A random sample of publications was extracted. Two authors conducted data extraction in a blinded, duplicate fashion using a pilot-tested Google form. This form prompted data extractors to determine whether publications provided access to items such as study materials, raw data, analysis scripts, and protocols. In addition, we determined if the publication was included in a replication study or systematic review, was preregistered, had a conflict of interest declaration, specified funding sources, and was open access.\n\nResultsOur search identified 223,932 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, from which 300 were randomly sampled. Only 290 articles were accessible, yielding 202 publications with empirical data for analysis. Our results indicate that 8.99% provided access to materials, 9.41% provided access to raw data, 0.50% provided access to the analysis scripts, 0.99% linked the protocol, and 3.47% were preregistered. A third of sampled publications lacked funding or conflict of interest statements. No publications from our sample were included in replication studies, but a fifth were cited in a systematic review or meta-analysis.\n\nConclusionsCurrent research in the field of neurology does not consistently provide information needed for reproducibility. The implications of poor research reporting can both affect patient care and increase research waste. Collaborative intervention by authors, peer reviewers, journals, and funding sources is needed to mitigate this problem.

scientific communication and education↗