Assessment of transparent and reproducible research practices in the psychiatry literature.

Background: Reproducibility is a cornerstone of scientific advancement; however, many published works may lack the core components needed for study reproducibility.

Aims: In this study, we evaluate the state of transparency and reproducibility in the field of psychiatry using specific indicators as proxies for these practices.

Methods: An increasing number of publications have investigated indicators of reproducibility, including research by Harwicke , from which we based the methodology for our observational, cross-sectional study.

Clinical trials registries are underused in the pregnancy and childbirth literature: a systematic review of the top 20 journals.

Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that do not include unpublished data in their analyses may be prone to publication bias, which in some cases has been shown to have deleterious consequences on determining the efficacy of interventions.

Methods: We retrieved systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the past 8 years (January 1, 2007-December 31, 2015) from the top 20 journals in the Pregnancy and Childbirth literature, as rated by Google Scholar's h5-index. A meta-epidemiologic analysis was performed to determine the frequency with which authors searched clinical trials registries for unpublished data.