You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Healthcare delivery, economics and global health
Original research
Evaluation of indicators supporting reproducibility and transparency within cardiology literature
  1. J Michael Anderson1,
  2. Bryan Wright1,
  3. Shelby Rauh1,
  4. Daniel Tritz1,
  5. Jarryd Horn1,
  6. Ian Parker2,
  7. Daniel Bergeron2,
  8. Sharolyn Cook2,
  9. Matt Vassar1
  1. 1 Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
  2. 2 Cardiology, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
  1. Correspondence to J Michael Anderson, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA; jande31{at}okstate.edu

Abstract

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. We included publications published between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2019. After the initial list of eligible cardiology publications was generated, we searched for full-text PDF versions using Open Access, Google Scholar and PubMed. Using a pilot-tested Google Form, a random sample of 532 publications were assessed for the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency.

Results A total of 232 eligible publications were included in our final analysis. The majority of publications (224/232, 96.6%) did not provide access to complete and unmodified data sets, all 229/232 (98.7%) failed to provide step-by-step analysis scripts and 228/232 (98.3%) did not provide access to complete study protocols.

Conclusions The presentation of studies published in cardiology journals would make reproducing study outcomes challenging, at best. Solutions to increase the reproducibility and transparency of publications in cardiology journals is needed. Moving forward, addressing inadequate sharing of materials, raw data and key methodological details might help to better the landscape of reproducible research within the field.

  • statistics and study design
  • research approaches

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2020-316519

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @mikeansders11, @BryanWrightmed

    • Contributors JMA: data collection, screening, analysis, manuscript composition, approval and guarantor. BW: data collection, screening, analysis, manuscript composition and approval. SR: data collection, screening, analysis, manuscript composition and approval. DT: methodology, data collection, screening, analysis, manuscript composition and approval. IP: analysis, manuscript composition and approval. DB: analysis, manuscript composition and approval. SC: analysis, manuscript composition and approval. MV: conception, methodology, data collection, screening, analysis, manuscript composition and approval.

    • Funding Funding for the completion of this study was provided through the 2019 Presidential Research Fellowship Mentor – Mentee Program at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences.

    • Competing interests MV has received grants from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity, and grants from the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology, outside the submitted work.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement Data are available in a public, open access repository. Data and study materials are available through the Open Science Framework database (https://osf.io/x24n3/).