Abstract
Clinical research serves as the foundation for evidence-based patient care, and reproducibility of results is consequently critical. We sought to assess the transparency and reproducibility of research studies in otolaryngology by evaluating a random sample of publications in otolaryngology journals between 2014 and 2018. Review of published literature for reproducible and transparent research practices. We used the National Library of Medicine catalog to identify otolaryngology journals that met the inclusion criteria (available in the English language and indexed in MEDLINE). From these journals, we extracted a random sample of 300 publications using a PubMed search for records published between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018. Specific indicators of reproducible and transparent research practices were evaluated in a blinded, independent, and duplicate manner using a pilot-tested Google form. Our initial search returned 26,498 records, from which 300 were randomly selected for analysis. Of these 300 records, 286 met inclusion criteria and 14 did not. Among the empirical studies, 2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4%-3.5%) of publications indicated that raw data were available, 0.6% (95% CI: 0.3%-1.6%) reported an analysis script, 5.3% (95% CI: 2.7%-7.8%) were linked to an accessible research protocol, and 3.9% (95% CI: 1.7%-6.1%) were preregistered. None of the publications had a clear statement claiming to replicate, or to be a replication of, another study. Inadequate reproducibility practices exist in otolaryngology. Nearly all studies in our analysis lacked a data or material availability statement, did not link to an accessible protocol, and were not preregistered. Taking steps to improve reproducibility would likely improve patient care. NA Laryngoscope, 130: 1894-1901, 2020.
Highlights
Clinical research serves as the foundation for evidence-based patient care, and reproducibility of results is critical
Transparent and Reproducible Factors Among the 300 publications analyzed, 67 (22.3% [95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), 17.6%-27%]) were available to the public using open Access Button, and 233 (77.7% [95% CI, 73-82.4]) were behind paywalls (Table 3)
Of the 286 publications we could access, 59 (20.6% [95% CI, 16.1%-25.2%]) did not report a conflict of interest statement, 208 (72.7% [95% CI, 67.7%-77.7%]) reported no conflict of interest, and 19
Summary
Clinical research serves as the foundation for evidence-based patient care, and reproducibility of results is critical. Methods: We used the National Library of Medicine catalog to identify otolaryngology journals that met the inclusion criteria (available in the English language and indexed in MEDLINE). From these journals, we extracted a random sample of 300 publications using a PubMed search for records published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. 2% (95% CI, 0.4%-3.5%) of publications indicated that raw data were available, 0.6% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.6%) reported an analysis script, 5.3% (95% CI, 2.7%-7.8%) were linked to an accessible research protocol, and 3.9% (95% CI, 1.7%-6.1%) were preregistered. Access to raw data sets and protocols—2 components of transparent and reproducible science—is of paramount importance in reducing and correcting false research findings
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
