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

Post-publication research integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials: A scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Post-publication handling of integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is a contentious matter.

OBJECTIVES

We undertook a scoping systematic review to map the literature regarding post-publication integrity issues in RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/pgxd8) we initially searched PubMed and Scopus but subsequently extended it to include the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases without language, article type or publication time restriction until November 2022. Reviewers independently selected published articles covering any aspect of post-publication research integrity concerns in RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The study findings grouped within domains relating to issues concerning post-publication integrity were extracted in duplicate, verified by a third reviewer, and then tabulated.

MAIN RESULTS

The initial search captured 3159 citations, of which 89 studies were included in the review. Cross-sectional studies constituted the majority of included studies (n = 34, 38.2%), followed by systematic reviews (n = 10, 11.2%), methodology reviews/studies (n = 9, 10.1%) and other types of descriptive studies (n = 8, 9.0%). A total of 21 articles (23.6%) covered the domain on general issues, 25 (28.1%) in the journal's instructions and policies domain, eight (9.0%) in the editorial and peer review domain, one (1.1%) in the correspondence and complaints (post-publication peer review) domain, 12 (13.5%) in the investigation for concerns domain, six (6.7%) in the post-investigation decisions and sanctions domain, none in the critical appraisal guidance domain, five (5.6%) in the integrity assessment in systematic reviews domain, and 26 (29.2%) in the recommendations for future research domain. A total of 12 of the selected articles (13.5%) covered two (n = 9) or three (n = 3) different domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Various research integrity domains and issues covering post-publication aspects of RCT integrity were captured and gaps were identified, mostly related with the necessary implications for all stakeholders to improve research transparency. There is an urgent need for a multistakeholder consensus towards creating specific statements for addressing post-publication integrity concerns in RCTs.

The transparency of quantitative empirical legal research published in highly ranked law journals (2018-2020): an observational study

Background

Scientists are increasingly concerned with making their work easy to verify and build upon. Associated practices include sharing data, materials, and analytic scripts, and preregistering protocols. This shift towards increased transparency and rigor has been referred to as a "credibility revolution." The credibility of empirical legal research has been questioned in the past due to its distinctive peer review system and because the legal background of its researchers means that many often are not trained in study design or statistics. Still, there has been no systematic study of transparency and credibility-related characteristics of published empirical legal research.

Methods

To fill this gap and provide an estimate of current practices that can be tracked as the field evolves, we assessed 300 empirical articles from highly ranked law journals including both faculty-edited journals and student-edited journals.

Results

We found high levels of article accessibility (86%, 95% CI = [82%, 90%]), especially among student-edited journals (100%). Few articles stated that a study's data are available (19%, 95% CI = [15%, 23%]). Statements of preregistration (3%, 95% CI = [1%, 5%]) and availability of analytic scripts (6%, 95% CI = [4%, 9%]) were very uncommon. (i.e., they collected new data using the study's reported methods, but found results inconsistent or not as strong as the original).

Conclusion

We suggest that empirical legal researchers and the journals that publish their work cultivate norms and practices to encourage research credibility. Our estimates may be revisited to track the field's progress in the coming years.

Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise research investigating data and code sharing in medicine and health to establish an accurate representation of the prevalence of sharing, how this frequency has changed over time, and what factors influence availability.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the preprint servers medRxiv, bioRxiv, and MetaArXiv were searched from inception to 1 July 2021. Forward citation searches were also performed on 30 August 2022.

REVIEW METHODS

Meta-research studies that investigated data or code sharing across a sample of scientific articles presenting original medical and health research were identified. Two authors screened records, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted summary data from study reports when individual participant data could not be retrieved. Key outcomes of interest were the prevalence of statements that declared that data or code were publicly or privately available (declared availability) and the success rates of retrieving these products (actual availability). The associations between data and code availability and several factors (eg, journal policy, type of data, trial design, and human participants) were also examined. A two stage approach to meta-analysis of individual participant data was performed, with proportions and risk ratios pooled with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The review included 105 meta-research studies examining 2 121 580 articles across 31 specialties. Eligible studies examined a median of 195 primary articles (interquartile range 113-475), with a median publication year of 2015 (interquartile range 2012-2018). Only eight studies (8%) were classified as having a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed a prevalence of declared and actual public data availability of 8% (95% confidence interval 5% to 11%) and 2% (1% to 3%), respectively, between 2016 and 2021. For public code sharing, both the prevalence of declared and actual availability were estimated to be <0.5% since 2016. Meta-regressions indicated that only declared public data sharing prevalence estimates have increased over time. Compliance with mandatory data sharing policies ranged from 0% to 100% across journals and varied by type of data. In contrast, success in privately obtaining data and code from authors historically ranged between 0% and 37% and 0% and 23%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The review found that public code sharing was persistently low across medical research. Declarations of data sharing were also low, increasing over time, but did not always correspond to actual sharing of data. The effectiveness of mandatory data sharing policies varied substantially by journal and type of data, a finding that might be informative for policy makers when designing policies and allocating resources to audit compliance.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/7SX8U.

How often do cancer researchers make their data and code available and what factors are associated with sharing?

BACKGROUND

Various stakeholders are calling for increased availability of data and code from cancer research. However, it is unclear how commonly these products are shared, and what factors are associated with sharing. Our objective was to evaluate how frequently oncology researchers make data and code available and explore factors associated with sharing.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis of a random sample of 306 cancer-related articles indexed in PubMed in 2019 which studied research subjects with a cancer diagnosis was performed. All articles were independently screened for eligibility by two authors. Outcomes of interest included the prevalence of affirmative sharing declarations and the rate with which declarations connected to data complying with key FAIR principles (e.g. posted to a recognised repository, assigned an identifier, data license outlined, non-proprietary formatting). We also investigated associations between sharing rates and several journal characteristics (e.g. sharing policies, publication models), study characteristics (e.g. cancer rarity, study design), open science practices (e.g. pre-registration, pre-printing) and subsequent citation rates between 2020 and 2021.

RESULTS

One in five studies declared data were publicly available (59/306, 19%, 95% CI: 15-24%). However, when data availability was investigated this percentage dropped to 16% (49/306, 95% CI: 12-20%), and then to less than 1% (1/306, 95% CI: 0-2%) when data were checked for compliance with key FAIR principles. While only 4% of articles that used inferential statistics reported code to be available (10/274, 95% CI: 2-6%), the odds of reporting code to be available were 5.6 times higher for researchers who shared data. Compliance with mandatory data and code sharing policies was observed in 48% (14/29) and 0% (0/6) of articles, respectively. However, 88% of articles (45/51) included data availability statements when required. Policies that encouraged data sharing did not appear to be any more effective than not having a policy at all. The only factors associated with higher rates of data sharing were studying rare cancers and using publicly available data to complement original research.

CONCLUSIONS

Data and code sharing in oncology occurs infrequently, and at a lower rate than would be expected given the prevalence of mandatory sharing policies. There is also a large gap between those declaring data to be available, and those archiving data in a way that facilitates its reuse. We encourage journals to actively check compliance with sharing policies, and researchers consult community-accepted guidelines when archiving the products of their research.

A comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in clinical trials of opioid use disorder: ACTTION review and recommendations

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prospective trial registration can increase research integrity. This Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) review was designed to compare the primary outcomes (PO) reported in registries with associated publications for opioid use disorder (OUD) clinical trials.

DESIGN

The World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was searched for completed trials (2010 through 2019). Associated publications were identified and paired with trial registry data based on the publication date.

MEASUREMENTS

Reviewers independently rated the occurrence of discrepancies between the POs in the registry compared to the publication. An analysis of prospective versus retrospective registration was also completed.

FINDINGS

One-hundred and forty trials were identified in the search, and 43 registry-publication pairs evaluated. Only 34 of the 43 pairs could be examined for discrepancies because nine did not report a PO in registry and publication. Of the 34 pairs, only four met rigorous criteria for prospective trial registration and had an exact match of POs. In contrast, the majority of the 34 trials, or 80%, had inconsistent POs (e.g., registered secondary outcomes published as primary; the timing of PO not specified) and/or were retrospectively registered.

CONCLUSIONS

Many clinical trials focused on OUD have not met the standards of trial registration, such as consistent reporting of POs and prospective registration. Failure to properly register trial characteristics undermines the validity of research findings and can delay the development of life-saving treatments. Recommendations for improving prospective trial reporting practices are provided.

Open Science Practices in Gambling Research Publications (2016-2019): A Scoping Review

The replication crisis has stimulated researchers around the world to adopt open science research practices intended to reduce publication bias and improve research quality. Open science practices include study pre-registration, open data, open access, and avoiding methods that can lead to publication bias and low replication rates. Although gambling studies uses similar research methods as behavioral research fields that have struggled with replication, we know little about the uptake of open science research practices in gambling-focused research. We conducted a scoping review of 500 recent (1/1/2016–12/1/2019) studies focused on gambling and problem gambling to examine the use of open science and transparent research practices. Our results showed that a small percentage of studies used most practices: whereas 54.6% (95% CI: [50.2, 58.9]) of studies used at least one of nine open science practices, each practice’s prevalence was: 1.6% for pre-registration (95% CI: [0.8, 3.1]), 3.2% for open data (95% CI: [2.0, 5.1]), 0% for open notebook, 35.2% for open access (95% CI: [31.1, 39.5]), 7.8% for open materials (95% CI: [5.8, 10.5]), 1.4% for open code (95% CI: [0.7, 2.9]), and 15.0% for preprint posting (95% CI: [12.1, 18.4]). In all, 6.4% (95% CI: [4.6, 8.9]) of the studies included a power analysis and 2.4% (95% CI: [1.4, 4.2]) were replication studies. Exploratory analyses showed that studies that used any open science practice, and open access in particular, had higher citation counts. We suggest several practical ways to enhance the uptake of open science principles and practices both within gambling studies and in science more generally.

Perceptions and Opinions Towards Data-Sharing: A Survey of Addiction Journal Editorial Board Members

Background

We surveyed addiction journal editorial board members to better understand their opinions towards data-sharing.

Methods

Survey items consisted of Likert-type (e.g., one to five scale), multiple-choice, and free-response questions. Journal websites were searched for names and email addresses. Emails were distributed using SurveyMonkey. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the responses.

Results

We received 178 responses (of 1039; 17.1%). Of these, 174 individuals agreed to participate in our study (97.8%). Most respondents did not know whether their journal had a data-sharing policy. Board members "somewhat agree" that addiction journals should recommend but not require data-sharing for submitted manuscripts [M=4.09 (SD=0.06); 95% CI: 3.97-4.22]. Items with the highest perceived benefit ratings were "secondary data use (e.g., meta-analysis)" [M=3.44 (SD=0.06); 95% CI: 3.31-3.56] and "increased transparency" [M=3.29 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.14-3.43]. Items perceived to be the greatest barrier to data-sharing included "lack of metadata standards" [M=3.21 (SD=0.08); 95% CI: 3.06-3.36], "no incentive" [M=3.43 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.30-3.57], "inadequate resources" [M=3.53 (SD=0.05); 95% CI: 3.42-3.63], and "protection of privacy"[M=3.22 (SD=0.07); 95% CI: 3.07-3.36].

Conclusion

Our results suggest addiction journal editorial board members believe data-sharing has a level of importance within the research community. However, most board members are unaware of their journals' data-sharing policies, and most data-sharing should be recommended but not required. Future efforts aimed at better understanding common reservations and benefits towards data-sharing, as well as avenues to optimize data-sharing while minimizing potential risks, are warranted.

Raising the bar: improving methodological rigour in cognitive alcohol research

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A range of experimental paradigms claim to measure the cognitive processes underpinning alcohol use, suggesting that heightened attentional bias, greater approach tendencies and reduced cue-specific inhibitory control are important drivers of consumption. This paper identifies methodological shortcomings within this broad domain of research and exemplifies them in studies focused specifically on alcohol-related attentional bias.

ARGUMENT AND ANALYSIS

We highlight five main methodological issues: (i) the use of inappropriately matched control stimuli; (ii) opacity of stimulus selection and validation procedures; (iii) a credence in noisy measures; (iv) a reliance on unreliable tasks; and (v) variability in design and analysis. This is evidenced through a review of alcohol-related attentional bias (64 empirical articles, 68 tasks), which reveals the following: only 53% of tasks use appropriately matched control stimuli; as few as 38% report their stimulus selection and 19% their validation procedures; less than 28% used indices capable of disambiguating attentional processes; 22% assess reliability; and under 2% of studies were pre-registered.

CONCLUSIONS

Well-matched and validated experimental stimuli, the development of reliable cognitive tasks and explicit assessment of their psychometric properties, and careful consideration of behavioural indices and their analysis will improve the methodological rigour of cognitive alcohol research. Open science principles can facilitate replication and reproducibility in alcohol research.

Open science practices for eating disorders research

This editorial seeks to encourage the increased application of three open science practices in eating disorders research: Preregistration, Registered Reports, and the sharing of materials, data, and code. For each of these practices, we introduce updated International Journal of Eating Disorders author and reviewer guidance. Updates include the introduction of open science badges; specific instructions about how to improve transparency; and the introduction of Registered Reports of systematic or meta-analytical reviews. The editorial also seeks to encourage the study of open science practices. Open science practices pose considerable time and other resource burdens. Therefore, research is needed to help determine the value of these added burdens and to identify efficient strategies for implementing open science practices.