RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Reproducible and Transparent Research Practices in Published Neurology Research
JF bioRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
SP 763730
DO 10.1101/763730
A1 Shelby Rauh
A1 Trevor Torgerson
A1 Austin L. Johnson
A1 Jonathan Pollard
A1 Daniel Tritz
A1 Matt Vassar
YR 2019
UL http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2019/09/26/763730.abstract
AB Background The objective of this study was to evaluate the nature and extent of reproducible and transparent research practices in neurology research.Methods The 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.Results Our 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.Conclusions Current 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.