Dataset Information

Trends and predictors of biomedical research quality, 1990-2015: a meta-research study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To measure the frequency of adequate methods, inadequate methods and poor reporting in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and test potential factors associated with adequacy of methods and reporting. DESIGN:Retrospective analysis of RCTs included in Cochrane reviews. Time series describes the proportion of RCTs using adequate methods, inadequate methods and poor reporting. A multinomial logit model tests potential factors associated with methods and reporting, including funding source, first author affiliation, clinical trial registration status, study novelty, team characteristics, technology and geography. DATA:Risk of bias assessments for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting, for each RCT, were mapped to bibliometric and funding data. OUTCOMES:Risk of bias on six methodological dimensions and RCT-level overall assessment of adequate methods, inadequate methods or poor reporting. RESULTS:This study analysed 20 571 RCTs. 5.7% of RCTs used adequate methods (N=1173). 59.3% used inadequate methods (N=12 190) and 35.0% were poorly reported (N=7208). The proportion of poorly reported RCTs decreased from 42.5% in 1990 to 30.2% in 2015. The proportion of RCTs using adequate methods increased from 2.6% in 1990 to 10.3% in 2015. The proportion of RCTs using inadequate methods increased from 54.9% in 1990 to 59.5% in 2015. Industry funding, top pharmaceutical company affiliation, trial registration, larger authorship teams, international teams and drug trials were associated with a greater likelihood of using adequate methods. National Institutes of Health funding and university prestige were not. CONCLUSION:Even though reporting has improved since 1990, the proportion of RCTs using inadequate methods is high (59.3%) and increasing, potentially slowing progress and contributing to the reproducibility crisis. Stronger incentives for the use of adequate methods are needed.

SUBMITTER: Catillon M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6731820 | biostudies-other | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Trends and predictors of biomedical research quality, 1990-2015: a meta-research study.

Catillon Maryaline M

BMJ open 20190903 9

<h4>Objective</h4>To measure the frequency of adequate methods, inadequate methods and poor reporting in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and test potential factors associated with adequacy of methods and reporting.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective analysis of RCTs included in Cochrane reviews. Time series describes the proportion of RCTs using adequate methods, inadequate methods and poor reporting. A multinomial logit model tests potential factors associated with methods and reporting, ...[more]

PMID: 31481564

Similar Datasets

Project description:Currently, there is a growing interest in ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of the published scientific literature. According to a previous evaluation of 441 biomedical journals articles published in 2000-2014, the biomedical literature largely lacked transparency in important dimensions. Here, we surveyed a random sample of 149 biomedical articles published between 2015 and 2017 and determined the proportion reporting sources of public and/or private funding and conflicts of interests, sharing protocols and raw data, and undergoing rigorous independent replication and reproducibility checks. We also investigated what can be learned about reproducibility and transparency indicators from open access data provided on PubMed. The majority of the 149 studies disclosed some information regarding funding (103, 69.1% [95% confidence interval, 61.0% to 76.3%]) or conflicts of interest (97, 65.1% [56.8% to 72.6%]). Among the 104 articles with empirical data in which protocols or data sharing would be pertinent, 19 (18.3% [11.6% to 27.3%]) discussed publicly available data; only one (1.0% [0.1% to 6.0%]) included a link to a full study protocol. Among the 97 articles in which replication in studies with different data would be pertinent, there were five replication efforts (5.2% [1.9% to 12.2%]). Although clinical trial identification numbers and funding details were often provided on PubMed, only two of the articles without a full text article in PubMed Central that discussed publicly available data at the full text level also contained information related to data sharing on PubMed; none had a conflicts of interest statement on PubMed. Our evaluation suggests that although there have been improvements over the last few years in certain key indicators of reproducibility and transparency, opportunities exist to improve reproducible research practices across the biomedical literature and to make features related to reproducibility more readily visible in PubMed.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To analyse average lifespan and quantify the effect of avoidable/amenable mortality on the difference between state-specific mortality and a low-mortality benchmark in Mexico during 1990-2015. DESIGN:Retrospective cross-sectional demographic analysis using aggregated data. SETTING:Vital statistics from the Mexican civil registration system. PARTICIPANTS:Aggregated national data (from 91.2?million people in 1995 to 119.9 in 2015) grouped in 64 populations (32 Mexican states (including Mexico City) by sex) with cause-of-death data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Cause-specific contributions to the gap in life expectancy with a low-mortality benchmark in three age groups (0-14, 15-49 and 50-84 years). RESULTS:Infants and children under the age of 15 years show improvements towards maximal survival in all states. However, adult males aged 15 to 49 years show deterioration after 2006 in almost every state due to increasing homicides, and a slow recovery thereafter. Out of 35 potential years, females and males live on average 34.57 (34.48 to 34.67) and 33.80 (33.34 to 34.27), respectively. Adults aged 50 to 84 years show an unexpected decrease in the low mortality benchmark, indicating nationwide deterioration among older adults. Females and males in this age group show an average survival of 28.59 (27.43 to 29.75) and 26.52 (25.33 to 27.73) out of 35 potential years, respectively. State gaps from the benchmark were mainly caused by ischaemic heart diseases, diabetes, cirrhosis and homicides. We find large health disparities between states, particularly for the adult population after 2005. CONCLUSIONS:Mexico has succeeded in reducing mortality and between-state inequalities in children. However, adults are becoming vulnerable as they have not been able to reduce the burden of violence and conditions amenable to health services and behaviours, such as diabetes, ischaemic heart diseases and cirrhosis. These trends have led to large health disparities between Mexican states in the last 25 years.

Dataset Information

Trends and predictors of biomedical research quality, 1990-2015: a meta-research study.

Publications

Trends and predictors of biomedical research quality, 1990-2015: a meta-research study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets