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 different investigators in different circumstances using the same methodology and materials. Unfortunately, reproducibility is not a standard to which the majority of...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objective: Reproducibility is a core tenet of scientific research. A
reproducible study is one where the results can be recreated by different
investigators in different circumstances using the same methodology and
materials. Unfortunately, reproducibility is not a standard to which the
majority of research is currently adherent. Methods: We objectively evaluated
300 trials in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology for fourteen indicators of
reproducibility. These indicators include availability of data, analysis
scripts, pre-registration information, study protocols and whether or not the
study was available via Open Access. We also assessed the trials for financial
conflict of interest statements and source of funding. Results: Of the 300
trials in our sample, 208 contained empirical data that could be assessed for
reproducibility. None of the trials in our sample provided a link to their
protocols or provided a statement on availability of materials. None were
replication studies. Just 10.58% provided a statement regarding their data
availability, while only 5.82% provided a statement on preregistration. 25.85%
failed to report the presence or absence of conflicts of interest and 54.08%
did not state the origin of their funding. Conclusion: Research in the field of
Obstetrics and Gynecology is not consistently reproducible and frequently lacks
conflict of interest disclosure. Consequences of this could be far-reaching and
include increased research waste, widespread acceptance of misleading results
and erroneous conclusions guiding clinical decision-making. |
---|---|
DOI: | 10.48550/arxiv.1907.06999 |