Transparent reporting of hypotheses and analyses in behavioral medicine research: An audit of publications in 2018 and 2008.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We aimed to document the use of transparent reporting of hypotheses and analyses in behavioral medicine journals in 2018 and 2008.

Design

We examined a randomly selected portion of articles published in 2018 and 2008 by behavioral medicine journals with the highest impact factor, excluding manuscripts that were reviews or purely descriptive.

Main outcome measures

We coded whether articles explicitly stated if the hypotheses/outcomes/analyses were primary or secondary; if study was registered/pre-registered; if "exploratory" or a related term was used to describe analyses/aims; and if power analyses were reported.

Results

We coded 162 manuscripts published in 2018 (87% observational and 12% experimental). Sixteen percent were explicit in describing hyp

SUBMITTER: McVay MA 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8145985 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature