scholarly journals Reproducible and Transparent Research Practices in Published Neurology Research

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelby Rauh ◽  
Trevor Torgerson ◽  
Austin L. Johnson ◽  
Jonathan Pollard ◽  
Daniel Tritz ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate the nature and extent of reproducible and transparent research practices in neurology research.MethodsThe 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.ResultsOur 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.ConclusionsCurrent 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.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Md Mobashir Hasan Shandhi ◽  
Jennifer C. Goldsack ◽  
Kyle Ryan ◽  
Alexandra Bennion ◽  
Aditya V. Kotla ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Digital clinical measures, such as smartphones, smartwatches, wearables, ingestibles, and implantables, are increasingly used by individuals and clinicians to capture health outcomes and/or behavioral and physiological characteristics of individuals. Although academia is taking an active role in evaluating digital sensing products, academic contributions to advancing the safe, effective, ethical, and equitable use of digital clinical measures are poorly characterized. OBJECTIVE We performed a systematic review to characterize the nature of academic research on digital clinical measures and to compare and contrast the types of sensors used and the sources of funding support for specific sub-areas of this research. METHODS We conducted a PubMed search using a range of search terms to retrieve peer-reviewed articles reporting US-led academic research on digital clinical measures between January 2019 and February 2021. We screened each publication against specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. We then identified and categorized research studies based on the types of academic research, sensors used, and funding sources. Finally, we compared and contrasted the funding support for these specific sub-areas of research and sensor types. RESULTS The search retrieved 4,240 articles of interest. Following screening, 295 articles remained for data extraction and categorization. The top five research sub-areas included operations research (research analysis) (76%), analytical validation (59%), usability and utility (data visualization) (42%), verification (32%), and clinical validation (28%). The three most underrepresented areas of research into digital clinical measures were ethics (0%), security (0.5%), and data rights and governance (0.5%). Movement and activity trackers were the most commonly studied sensor type, and physiological-mechanical sensors were the least frequently studied. We found that government agencies are providing the most funding for research on digital clinical measures (65% of studies), followed by independent foundations (37%), and industry (19%), with the remaining 12% of these studies completely unfunded. CONCLUSIONS Specific subareas of academic research related to digital clinical measures are not keeping pace with the rapid expansion and adoption of digital sensing products. An integrated and coordinated effort is required across academia, academic partners, and academic funders to establish the field of digital clinical measures as an evidence-based field worthy of our trust.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caleb A. Smith ◽  
Johnny Nolan ◽  
Daniel J. Tritz ◽  
Trace E. Heavener ◽  
Jameson Pelton ◽  
...  

AbstractRationaleStudy reproducibility is valuable for validating or refuting results. Provision of reproducibility indicators, such as materials, protocols, and raw data in a study to improve its potential for reproduction. Efforts to reproduce noteworthy studies in the biomedical sciences have resulted in an overwhelming majority of them being found to be unreplicable, causing concern for the integrity of research in other fields, including medical specialities.ObjectiveHere, we analyzed the reproducibility of studies in the field of pulmonology.Methods300 pulmonology articles were randomly selected from an initial PubMed search for data extraction. Two authors scoured these articles for reproducibility indicators including materials, protocols, raw data, analysis scripts, inclusion in systematic reviews, and citations by replication studies as well as other factors of research transparency including open accessibility, funding source and competing interest disclosures, and study preregistration.Main ResultsFew publications included statements regarding materials (11%), protocols (1%), data (21%), and analysis script (0%) availability. Less than 10% indicated preregistration. More than half of the publications analyzed failed to provide a funding statement. Conversely, 66% of the publications were open access and 70% included a conflict of interest statement.ConclusionOverall, our study indicates pulmonology research is currently lacking in efforts to increase replicability. Future studies should focus on providing sufficient information regarding materials, protocols, raw data, and analysis scripts, among other indicators, for the sake of clinical decisions that depend on replicable or refutable results from the primary literature.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e047283
Author(s):  
Rosalind Gittins ◽  
Louise Missen ◽  
Ian Maidment

IntroductionThere is a growing concern about the misuse of over the counter (OTC) and prescription only medication (POM) because of the impact on physical and mental health, drug interactions, overdoses and drug-related deaths. These medicines include opioid analgesics, anxiolytics such as pregabalin and diazepam and antidepressants. This protocol outlines how a systematic review will be undertaken (during June 2021), which aims to examine the literature on the pattern of OTC and POM misuse among adults who are accessing substance misuse treatment services. It will include the types of medication being taken, prevalence and demographic characteristics of people who access treatment services.Methods and analysisAn electronic search will be conducted on the Cochrane, OVID Medline, Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science databases as well as grey literature. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial title and abstract screenings, using predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. If selected for inclusion, full-text data extraction will be conducted using a pilot-tested data extraction form. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be reached. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted for all included studies. A qualitative synthesis and summary of the data will be provided. If possible, a meta-analysis with heterogeneity calculation will be conducted; otherwise, Synthesis Without Meta-analysis will be undertaken for quantitative data. The reporting of this protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Findings will be peer reviewed, published and shared verbally, electronically and in print, with interested clinicians and policymakers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020135216.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e040997
Author(s):  
Varo Kirthi ◽  
Paul Nderitu ◽  
Uazman Alam ◽  
Jennifer Evans ◽  
Sarah Nevitt ◽  
...  

IntroductionThere is growing evidence of a higher than expected prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes. This paper presents the protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of retinopathy in prediabetes. The aim of the review is to estimate the prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes and to summarise the current data.Methods and analysisThis protocol is developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A comprehensive electronic bibliographic search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies will report prevalence data for retinopathy on fundus photography in adults with prediabetes. No time restrictions will be placed on the date of publication. Screening for eligible studies and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers independently, using predefined inclusion criteria and prepiloted data extraction forms. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved by discussion, and if required, a third (senior) reviewer will arbitrate.The primary outcome is the prevalence of any standard features of diabetic retinopathy (DR) on fundus photography, as per International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (ICDRSS) classification. Secondary outcomes are the prevalence of (1) any retinal microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography that are not standard features of DR as per ICDRSS classification and (2) any macular microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography, including but not limited to the presence of macular exudates, microaneurysms and haemorrhages. Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed using a validated risk of bias tool for prevalence studies. Pooled estimates for the prespecified outcomes of interest will be calculated using random effects meta-analytic techniques. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this is a protocol for a systematic review and no primary data are to be collected. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international meetings including Diabetes UK, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, American Diabetes Association and International Diabetes Federation conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184820.


Author(s):  
Antonio Jose Martin-Perez ◽  
María Fernández-González ◽  
Paula Postigo-Martin ◽  
Marc Sampedro Pilegaard ◽  
Carolina Fernández-Lao ◽  
...  

There is no systematic review that has identified existing studies evaluating the pharmacological and non-pharmacological intervention for pain management in patients with bone metastasis. To fill this gap in the literature, this systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of different antalgic therapies (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) in the improvement of pain of these patients. To this end, this protocol has been written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020135762). A systematic search will be carried out in four international databases: Medline (Via PubMed), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS, to select the randomized controlled clinical trials. The Risk of Bias Tool developed by Cochrane will be used to assess the risk of bias and the quality of the identified studies. A narrative synthesis will be used to describe and compare the studies, and after the data extraction, random effects model and a subgroup analyses will be performed according to the type of intervention, if possible. This protocol aims to generate a systematic review that compiles and synthesizes the best and most recent evidence on the treatment of pain derived from vertebral metastasis.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e047439
Author(s):  
Rayan Jafnan Alharbi ◽  
Virginia Lewis ◽  
Sumina Shrestha ◽  
Charne Miller

IntroductionThe introduction of trauma systems that began in the 1970s resulted in improved trauma care and a decreased rate of morbidity and mortality of trauma patients. Worldwide, little is known about the effectiveness of trauma care system at different stages of development, from establishing a trauma centre, to implementing a trauma system and as trauma systems mature. The objective of this study is to extract and analyse data from research that evaluates mortality rates according to different stages of trauma system development globally.Methods and analysisThe proposed review will comply with the checklist of the ‘Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis’. In this review, only peer-reviewed articles written in English, human-related studies and published between January 2000 and December 2020 will be included. Articles will be retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Additional articles will be identified from other sources such as references of included articles and author lists. Two independent authors will assess the eligibility of studies as well as critically appraise and assess the methodological quality of all included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias for Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool. Two independent authors will extract the data to minimise errors and bias during the process of data extraction using an extraction tool developed by the authors. For analysis calculation, effect sizes will be expressed as risk ratios or ORs for dichotomous data or weighted (or standardised) mean differences and 95% CIs for continuous data in this systematic review.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will use secondary data only, therefore, research ethics approval is not required. The results from this study will be submitted to a peer-review journal for publication and we will present our findings at national and international conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019142842.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdou Fatawou Modiyinji ◽  
Jean Joel Bigna ◽  
Sebastien Kenmoe ◽  
Fredy Brice N. Simo ◽  
Marie A. Amougou ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is a major cause of acute hepatitis in humans worldwide and have high burden in the resource-limited countries. Better knowledge of the epidemiology of hepatitis in animals in Africa can help to understand the epidemiology among humans. The objective of this study was to summarize the prevalence of HEV infection and distribution of HEV genotypes among animals in Africa. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, African Journals Online, and Africa Index Medicus from January 1st, 2000 to March 22th, 2020 without any language restriction. We considered cross-sectional studies of HEV infection in animals in Africa. Study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality of included studies were done independently by two investigators. Prevalence data were pooled using the random-effects meta-analysis. This review was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42018087684. Results Twenty-five studies (13 species and 6983 animals) were included. The prevalence (antibodies or ribonucleic acid [RNA]) of HEV infection in animals varied widely depending on biological markers of HEV infection measured: 23.4% (95% confidence interval; 12.0–37.2) for anti-HEV immunoglobulins G, 13.1% (3.1–28.3) for anti-HEV immunoglobulins M, and 1.8% (0.2–4.3) for RNA; with substantial heterogeneity. In subgroup analysis, the immunoglobulins G seroprevalence was higher among pigs 37.8% (13.9–65.4). The following HEV genotypes were reported in animals: Rat-HEV genotype 1 (rats and horses), HEV-3 (pigs), HEV-7 (dromedaries), and Bat hepeviruses (bats). Conclusions We found a high prevalence of HEV infection in animals in Africa and HEV genotypes close to that of humans. Some animals in Africa could be the reservoir of HEV, highlighting the need of molecular epidemiological studies for investigating zoonotic transmission.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melina von Wernsdorff ◽  
Martin Loef ◽  
Brunna Tuschen-Caffier ◽  
Stefan Schmidt

AbstractOpen-label placebos (OLPs) are placebos without deception in the sense that patients know that they are receiving a placebo. The objective of our study is to systematically review and analyze the effect of OLPs in comparison to no treatment in clinical trials. A systematic literature search was carried out in February 2020. Randomized controlled trials of any medical condition or mental disorder comparing OLPs to no treatment were included. Data extraction and risk of bias rating were independently assessed. 1246 records were screened and thirteen studies were included into the systematic review. Eleven trials were eligible for meta-analysis. These trials assessed effects of OLPs on back pain, cancer-related fatigue, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, allergic rhinitis, major depression, irritable bowel syndrome and menopausal hot flushes. Risk of bias was moderate among all studies. We found a significant overall effect (standardized mean difference = 0.72, 95% Cl 0.39–1.05, p < 0.0001, I2 = 76%) of OLP. Thus, OLPs appear to be a promising treatment in different conditions but the respective research is in its infancy. More research is needed, especially with respect to different medical and mental disorders and instructions accompanying the OLP administration as well as the role of expectations and mindsets.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e044917
Author(s):  
Tao Xu ◽  
You Wang ◽  
Jinxian Yuan ◽  
Yangmei Chen ◽  
Haiyan Luo

ObjectiveContrast extravasation (CE) after endovascular therapy (EVT) is commonly present in acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) patients. Substantial uncertainties remain about the relationship between CE and the outcomes of EVT in patients with AIS. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate this association.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies were performed.Data sourceWe systematically searched the Medline and Embase databases for relevant clinical studies. The last literature search in databases was performed in June 2020.Eligibility criteria for study selectionWe included studies exploring the associations between CE and the outcomes of EVT in patients with AIS undergoing EVT.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers extracted relevant information and data from each article independently. We pooled ORs with CIs using a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the associations between CE and outcomes of EVT. The magnitude of heterogeneity between estimates was quantified with the I2 statistic with 95% CIs.ResultsFifteen observational studies that enrolled 1897 patients were included. Patients with CE had higher risks of poor functional outcome at discharge (2.38, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.89 p=0.001; n=545) and poor functional outcome at 90 days (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.90; n=1194). We found no association between CE and in-hospital mortality (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.30; n=376) or 90-day mortality (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.36; n=697) after EVT. Moreover, CE was associated with higher risks of post-EVT intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) (OR 6.68, 95% CI 3.51 to 12.70; n=1721) and symptomatic ICH (OR 3.26, 95% CI 1.97 to 5.40; n=1092).ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that in patients with AIS undergoing EVT, CE is associated with higher risks of unfavourable functional outcomes and ICH. Thus, we should pay more attention to CE in patients with AIS undergoing EVT.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
William M. Jackson ◽  
Nicholas Davis ◽  
Johanna Calderon ◽  
Jennifer J. Lee ◽  
Nicole Feirsen ◽  
...  

Abstract Context: People with CHD are at increased risk for executive functioning deficits. Meta-analyses of these measures in CHD patients compared to healthy controls have not been reported. Objective: To examine differences in executive functions in individuals with CHD compared to healthy controls. Data sources: We performed a systematic review of publications from 1 January, 1986 to 15 June, 2020 indexed in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Study selection: Inclusion criteria were (1) studies containing at least one executive function measure; (2) participants were over the age of three. Data extraction: Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors. We used a shifting unit-of-analysis approach and pooled data using a random effects model. Results: The search yielded 61,217 results. Twenty-eight studies met criteria. A total of 7789 people with CHD were compared with 8187 healthy controls. We found the following standardised mean differences: −0.628 (−0.726, −0.531) for cognitive flexibility and set shifting, −0.469 (−0.606, −0.333) for inhibition, −0.369 (−0.466, −0.273) for working memory, −0.334 (−0.546, −0.121) for planning/problem solving, −0.361 (−0.576, −0.147) for summary measures, and −0.444 (−0.614, −0.274) for reporter-based measures (p < 0.001). Limitations: Our analysis consisted of cross-sectional and observational studies. We could not quantify the effect of collinearity. Conclusions: Individuals with CHD appear to have at least moderate deficits in executive functions. Given the growing population of people with CHD, more attention should be devoted to identifying executive dysfunction in this vulnerable group.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document