Search

Abstract Background Researchers performing high-quality systematic reviews search across multiple databases to identify relevant evidence. However, the same publication is often retrieved from several databases. Identifying and removing such duplicates (“deduplication”) can be extremely time-consuming, but failure to remove these citations can lead to the wrongful inclusion of duplicate data. Many existing tools are not sensitive enough, lack interoperability with other tools, are not freely accessible, or are difficult to use without programming knowledge. Here, we report the performance of our Automated Systematic Search Deduplicator (ASySD), a novel tool to perform automated deduplication of systematic searches for biomedical reviews. Methods We evaluated ASySD’s performance on 5 unseen biomedical systematic search datasets of various sizes (1845–79,880 citations). We compared the performance of ASySD with EndNote’s automated deduplication option and with the Systematic Review Assistant Deduplication Module (SRA-DM). Results ASySD identified more duplicates than either SRA-DM or EndNote, with a sensitivity in different datasets of 0.95 to 0.99. The false-positive rate was comparable to human performance, with a specificity of > 0.99. The tool took less than 1 h to identify and remove duplicates within each dataset. Conclusions For duplicate removal in biomedical systematic reviews, ASySD is a highly sensitive, reliable, and time-saving tool. It is open source and freely available online as both an R package and a user-friendly web application.

Abstract Background Natural language processing could assist multiple tasks in systematic reviews to reduce workflow, including the extraction of PICO elements such as study populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes. The PICO framework provides a basis for the retrieval and selection for inclusion of evidence relevant to a specific systematic review question, and automatic approaches to PICO extraction have been developed particularly for reviews of clinical trial findings. Considering the difference between preclinical animal studies and clinical trials, developing separate approaches is necessary. Facilitating preclinical systematic reviews will inform the translation from preclinical to clinical research. Methods We randomly selected 400 abstracts from the PubMed Central Open Access database which described in vivo animal research and manually annotated these with PICO phrases for Species, Strain, methods of Induction of disease model, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome. We developed a two-stage workflow for preclinical PICO extraction. Firstly we fine-tuned BERT with different pre-trained modules for PICO sentence classification. Then, after removing the text irrelevant to PICO features, we explored LSTM-, CRF- and BERT-based models for PICO entity recognition. We also explored a self-training approach because of the small training corpus. Results For PICO sentence classification, BERT models using all pre-trained modules achieved an F1 score of over 80%, and models pre-trained on PubMed abstracts achieved the highest F1 of 85%. For PICO entity recognition, fine-tuning BERT pre-trained on PubMed abstracts achieved an overall F1 of 71% and satisfactory F1 for Species (98%), Strain (70%), Intervention (70%) and Outcome (67%). The score of Induction and Comparator is less satisfactory, but F1 of Comparator can be improved to 50% by applying self-training. Conclusions Our study indicates that of the approaches tested, BERT pre-trained on PubMed abstracts is the best for both PICO sentence classification and PICO entity recognition in the preclinical abstracts. Self-training yields better performance for identifying comparators and strains.

Abstract Increasing awareness of problems with the reproducibility and integrity of research led the UK Parliament Science and Technology Committee to launch, in July 2021, an inquiry into reproducibility and research integrity. We recognise at least four potential reasons why attempts to replicate a research finding may be unsuccessful: false positive statistical analyses, low generalisability of findings, suboptimal study designs (research integrity), and deliberate malfeasance (researcher integrity). It is important to make a distinction between the contributions of research integrity and of researcher integrity to the reproducibility crisis. While the impact of an individual instance of compromised researcher integrity is substantial, the aggregate impact of more prevalent problems with research integrity is likely much greater. The research community will be most efficient when failed replication efforts are never due to issues of research integrity or of researcher integrity, as this would allow focus on the scientific reasons for why two apparently similar experiments should reach different conclusions. We discuss the role of funders, institutions and government in addressing the “reproducibility crisis” before considering which interventions might have a positive impact on academia’s approach to reproducible research, and a possible role for a committee on research integrity.

Abstract The adoption and incentivisation of open and transparent research practices is critical in addressing issues around research reproducibility and research integrity. These practices will require training and funding. Individuals need to be incentivised to adopt open and transparent research practices (e.g., added as desirable criteria in hiring, probation, and promotion decisions, recognition that funded research should be conducted openly and transparently, the importance of publishers mandating the publication of research workflows and appropriately curated data associated with each research output). Similarly, institutions need to be incentivised to encourage the adoption of open and transparent practices by researchers. Research quality should be prioritised over research quantity. As research transparency will look different for different disciplines, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach. An outward looking and joined up UK research strategy is needed that places openness and transparency at the heart of research activity. This should involve key stakeholders (institutions, research organisations, funders, publishers, and Government) and crucially should be focused on action. Failure to do this will have negative consequences not just for UK research, but also for our ability to innovate and subsequently commercialise UK-led discovery.

Abstract There are many factors that contribute to the reproducibility and replicability of scientific research. There is a need to understand the research ecosystem, and improvements will require combined efforts across all parts of this ecosystem. National structures can play an important role in coordinating these efforts, working collaboratively with researchers, institutions, funders, publishers, learned societies and other sectoral organisations, and providing a monitoring and reporting function. Whilst many new ways of working and emerging innovations hold a great deal of promise, it will be important to invest in meta-research activity to ensure that these approaches are evidence based, work as intended, and do not have unintended consequences. Addressing reproducibility will require working collaboratively across the research ecosystem to share best practice and to make the most effective use of resources. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) brings together Local Networks of researchers, Institutions, and External Stakeholders (funders, publishers, learned societies and other sectoral organisations), to coordinate action on reproducibility and work to ensure the UK retains its place as a centre for world-leading research. This activity is coordinated by the UKRN Steering Group. We consider this structure as valuable, bringing together a range of voices at a range of levels to support the combined efforts required to enact change.

Abstract Background In pre-clinical research, systematic reviews have the potential to mitigate translational challenges by facilitating understanding of how pre-clinical studies can inform future clinical research. Yet their conduct is encumbered by heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported, and those outcomes may not always relate to the most clinically important outcomes. We aimed to systematically review outcomes measured and reported in pre-clinical in vivo studies of pharmacological interventions to treat high blood glucose in mouse models of type 2 diabetes. Methods A systematic review of pre-clinical in vivo studies of pharmacological interventions aimed at addressing elevated blood glucose in mouse models of type 2 diabetes was completed. Studies were screened for eligibility and outcomes extracted from the included studies. The outcomes were recorded verbatim and classified into outcome domains using an existing outcome taxonomy. Outcomes were also compared to those identified in a systematic review of registered phase 3/4 clinical trials for glucose lowering interventions in people with type 2 diabetes. Results Review of 280 included studies identified 532 unique outcomes across 19 domains. No single outcome, or domain, was measured in all studies and only 132 (21%) had also been measured in registered phase 3/4 clinical trials. A core outcome set, representing the minimum that should be measured and reported, developed for type 2 diabetes effectiveness clinical trials includes 18 core outcomes, of these 12 (71%) outcomes were measured and reported in one or more of the included pre-clinical studies. Conclusions There is heterogeneity of outcomes reported in pre-clinical research. Harmonisation of outcomes across the research pathway using a core outcome set may facilitate interpretation, evidence synthesis and translational success, and may contribute to the refinement of the use of animals in research. Systematic review registration: The study was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO Database, registration number CRD42018106831

Abstract Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the “ARRIVE Essential 10,” which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the “Recommended Set,” which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

Abstract Research synthesis is the process of bringing together findings and attributes from different publications, for example, to give a more complete description of phenomena than is usually possible in a single work. We bring the Research Synthesis Series to BMC Biology to promote meta-analyses, other research syntheses including meta-research studies, and research synthesis methodologies in biology, facilitating their dissemination to broader communities.