Correlation analysis of financial conflicts of interest and favourability of results or conclusions in addiction medicine systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

Objective: To quantify conflicts of interest, assess the accuracy of authors self-reporting them, and examine the association between conflicts of interest and favourability of results and discussions in addiction medicine systematic reviews.

Design: A search was performed on Medline (Ovid) from January 2016 to 25 April 2020 to locate systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on treatments of addiction disorders using a systematic search strategy. Data were extracted from each systematic review, including conflict of interest statements, authorship characteristics and the favourability of the results/conclusion sections.

A review of reproducible and transparent research practices in urology publications from 2014 to2018.

Background: Reproducibility is essential for the integrity of scientific research. Reproducibility is measured by the ability of different investigators to replicate the outcomes of an original publication using the same materials and procedures. Unfortunately, reproducibility is not currently a standard being met by most scientific research.

Evaluating Reproducibility and Transparency in Emergency Medicine Publications.

Introduction: We aimed to assess the reproducibility of empirical research by determining the availability of components required for replication of a study, including materials, raw data, analysis scripts, protocols, and preregistration.

Methods: We used the National Library of Medicine catalog to identify MEDLINE-indexed emergency medicine (EM) journals. Thirty journals met the inclusion criteria.

Transparent and Reproducible Research Practices in the Surgical Literature.

Introduction: Previous studies have established a baseline of minimal reproducibility in the social science and biomedical literature. Clinical research is especially deficient in factors of reproducibility. Surgical journals contain fewer clinical trials than non-surgical areas of medicine, suggesting that it should be easier to reproduce the outcomes of surgical literature.

Evaluating the reproducibility of research in obstetrics and gynecology.

Objective: Reproducibility is a core tenet of scientific research. A reproducible study is one where the results can be recreated by using the same methodology and materials as the original researchers. Unfortunately, reproducibility is not a standard to which the majority of research is currently adherent.

Evaluation of conflicts of interest among systematic review authors on pharmacological therapies for alcohol use disorder: A cross-sectional study.

: The high prevalence and economic burden of alcohol use disorder (AUD) requires methodologically sound research to guide treatment decisions. Systematic reviews (SR) are fundamental to clinical decision making as they collate results of all studies for a given topic and provide summaries of the clinical evidence. Bias resulting from industry relationships can compromise the validity of SRs.

Evaluation of articles in metabolism research on the basis of their citations.

Introduction: The number of research papers and journals each year is increasing and millions of dollars are spent. Despite this there is evidence to suggest that many publications do not impact clinical practice. We used citation analysis to measure the influence of metabolism publications from 2003-2013.

Evaluation of indicators supporting reproducibility and transparency within cardiology literature.

Objectives: It has been suggested that biomedical research is facing a reproducibility issue, yet the extent of reproducible research within the cardiology literature remains unclear. Thus, our main objective was to assess the quality of research published in cardiology journals by assessing for the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency.

Methods: Using a cross-sectional study design, we conducted an advanced search of the National Library of Medicine catalogue for publications in cardiology journals.

Evaluation of Risks of Bias in Addiction Medicine Randomized Controlled Trials.

Aims: Perhaps the most important step when designing and conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in addiction is to put methodological safeguards in place to minimize the likelihood for bias to affect trial outcomes. In this study, we applied the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to RCTs of drug, alcohol or tobacco interventions.

Methods: We searched for trials published in 15 addiction medicine journals over a 7-year period.

An evaluation of the practice of transparency and reproducibility in addiction medicine literature.

Background: Credible research emphasizes transparency, openness, and reproducibility. These characteristics are fundamental to promoting and maintaining research integrity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of reproducibility in the field of addiction science.

Evaluation of reproducible and transparent research practices in pulmonology.

Background: Study reproducibility is valuable for validating or refuting results. Provision of reproducibility indicators, such as materials, protocols, and raw data in a study 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 specialties.

Analysis of practices to promote reproducibility and transparency in anaesthesiology research.

Introduction: Reliable, high-quality research is essential to the field of anaesthesiology. Reproducibility and transparency have been investigated in the biomedical domain and in the social sciences, with both lacking to provide necessary information to reproduce the study findings. In this study, we investigated 14 indicators of reproducibility in anaesthesiology research.

An analysis of key indicators of reproducibility in radiology.

Background: Given the central role of radiology in patient care, it is important that radiological research is grounded in reproducible science. It is unclear whether there is a lack of reproducibility or transparency in radiologic research.

Purpose: To analyze published radiology literature for the presence or lack of key indicators of reproducibility.

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.

Reproducible and transparent research practices in published neurology research.

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the nature and extent of reproducible and transparent research practices in neurology publications.

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.

An Evaluation of Nephrology Literature for Transparency and Reproducibility Indicators: Cross-Sectional Review.

Introduction: Reproducibility is critical to diagnostic accuracy and treatment implementation. Concurrent with clinical reproducibility, research reproducibility establishes whether the use of identical study materials and methodologies in replication efforts permits researchers to arrive at similar results and conclusions. In this study, we address this gap by evaluating nephrology literature for common indicators of transparent and reproducible research.

Do oncology researchers adhere to reproducible and transparent principles? A cross-sectional survey of published oncology literature.

Objectives: As much as 50%-90% of research is estimated to be irreproducible, costing upwards of $28 billion in USA alone. Reproducible research practices are essential to improving the reproducibility and transparency of biomedical research, such as including preregistering studies, publishing a protocol, making research data and metadata publicly available, and publishing in open access journals. Here we report an investigation of key reproducible or transparent research practices in the published oncology literature.

An assessment of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in otolaryngology.

Objectives/hypothesis: 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.

Study Design: Review of published literature for reproducible and transparent research practices.

The fragility of randomized trial outcomes underlying management of dyspepsia and Helicobacter pylori infections.

Aim: The fragility index is calculated by changing one outcome event to a nonevent within a trial until the associated P value exceeds 0.05. In this study, we assessed the robustness, risk of bias (RoB), and power of randomized controlled trials that underlie recommendations set forth by the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) on managing dyspepsia and Helicobacter pylori infections.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Routine Screening Mammography.

Purpose: Financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) may influence or undermine the credibility of clinical practice guidelines or society recommendations. Given the wide regard of such publications, understanding the prevalence and extent of FCOIs among their authors is essential.

Methods: The most current guidelines containing recommendations for breast cancer screening from the US Preventive Services Task Force, American Cancer Society, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, International Agency for Research on Cancer, ACR, and American College of Physicians were retrieved from their respective organizational websites.

The fragility of statistically significant results in otolaryngology randomized trials.

Objectives: The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery regards randomized controlled trials as class A evidence. A novel method to determine the robustness of outcomes in trials is the fragility index. This index represents the number of patients whose status would have to change from a non-event to an event to make a statistically significant result non-significant.

Conversion of Skeletal Society of Radiology annual meeting abstracts to publications in 2010-2015.

Background: Material presented at conferences is meant to provide exposure to ongoing research that could affect medical decision making based on future outcomes. It is important then to evaluate the rates of publication from conference presentations as a measure of academic quality as such research has undergone peer review and journal acceptance. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the fate of abstracts presented at the Skeletal Society of Radiology Annual Meetings from 2010-2015.

Research Gaps in Wilderness Medicine.

Introduction: Wilderness medicine involves the treatment of individuals in remote, austere environments. Given the high potential for injuries as well as the unique treatment modalities required in wilderness medicine, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are necessary to provide optimal care. In this study, we identify evidence gaps from low-quality recommendations in wilderness medicine clinical practice guidelines and identify new/ongoing research addressing them.

Assessing quality of randomized trials supporting guidelines for laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery.

Background: Recent studies have highlighted the risk of bias and the fragility of results in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical practice guidelines created by the Society for Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) for fragility, statistical power, and risk of bias.

Materials And Methods: We screened the SAGES clinical practice guideline references for qualifying RCTs.