Search

Replicability is widely regarded as one of the defining features of science and its pursuit is one of the main postulates of meta-research, a discipline emerging in response to the replicability crisis. At the same time, replicability is typically treated with caution by philosophers of science. In this paper, we reassess the value of replicability from an epistemic perspective. We defend the orthodox view, according to which replications are always epistemically useful, against the more prudent view that claims that it is useful in very limited circumstances. Additionally, we argue that we can learn more about the original experiment and the limits of the discovered effect from replications at different levels. We hold that replicability is a crucial feature of experimental results and scientists should continue to strive to secure it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To analyse the general and primary outcome‐related characteristics of clinical trials protocols on COVID‐19 vaccines. Study Design and Setting: A meta‐research study. A search for clinical trial protocols on COVID‐19 vaccines was conducted on the ClinicalTrials.gov platform. We considered all protocols of comparative trials registered up to October 26, 2021. Results: Two hundred and eighty‐two trials were analysed. The median expected trial duration was 445 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 225), and the median target sample size was 420 participants (IQR = 1638). A retrospective registry (after the start date) was observed for 42.55% of the trials. Randomization procedures were planned by 84.75% and full‐blinding procedures by 34.75% of the 282 trials. Most trials were labelled as active or still recruiting, and 14 trials (5%) were completed. None of the 14 trials labelled as completed on our search date had results available. Industry funding was reported by 198 trials (70.2%). Most studies declared more than one primary outcome, usually a safety or immunogenicity outcome, and 59 studies (20.9%) had at least one primary efficacy outcome. The description of the primary efficacy outcomes was limited in most cases, referred to as a non‐specified 'efficacy' outcome (18.6%) or described as 'COVID‐19 cases' (32.2%). Conclusion: the primary outcomes of clinical trials on COVID‐19 vaccines are poorly described, and the registers provide insufficient information about them. The registry was retrospectively fulfilled for many trials, which may lead to bias and research waste. Outcomes were generically described and did not provide transparent information for replication in practice, further trials or meta‐analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychological science has thrived thanks to new methods and innovative practices. Journals, including Behavior Research Methods (BRM), continue to support the dissemination and evaluation of research assets including data, software/hardware, statistical code, and databases of stimuli. However, such research assets rarely allow for computational reproducibility, meaning they are difficult to reuse. Therefore, in this preregistered report, we explore how BRM's authors and BRM structures shape the landscape of functional research assets. Our broad research questions concern: (1) How quickly methods and analytical techniques reported in BRM can be used and developed further by other scientists; (2) Whether functionality has improved following changes to BRM journal policy in support of computational reproducibility; (3) Whether we can disentangle such policy changes from changes in reproducibility over time. We randomly sampled equal numbers of papers (N = 204) published in BRM before and after the implementation of policy changes. Pairs of researchers recorded how long it took to ensure assets (data, software/hardware, statistical code, and materials) were fully operational. They also coded the completeness and reusability of the assets. While improvements were observed in all measures, only changes to completeness were altered significantly following the policy changes (d =.37). The effects varied between different types of research assets, with data sets from surveys/experiments showing the largest improvements in completeness and reusability. Perhaps more importantly, changes to policy do appear to have improved the life span of research products by reducing natural decline. We conclude with a discussion of how, in the future, research and policy might better support computational reproducibility within and beyond psychological science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the challenges and limitations in current scientific research practices, including issues with reproducibility, transparency, and the pursuit of statistical significance. Topics include the overemphasis on statistical significance in research, the prevalence of selective publication and reporting bias, and the role of meta-research in evaluating and improving scientific methodologies.

Copyright of Methods in Ecology & Evolution is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study is a systematic examination of the open access status of research in two flagship language testing and assessment journals: Language Testing and Language Assessment Quarterly. Coding and analysing 898 articles, we investigated (a) the prevalence of open access in four aspects—open manuscripts, open materials, open data, and open code, and (b) the relationship between open access and various characteristics of research, tests, and researchers. Our study revealed a positive trend in the adoption of open access over time, with open manuscripts and materials showing notable increases. Open code and data have remained scarce, though with a recent uptick from a low base. Notably, logistic regression results suggest inequitable participation in open access as authors from the Global South were less likely to have open manuscripts. Recognising the potential role of flagship journals as trend and standard setters, we call on the field to (a) shift towards more equitable open access models, (b) balance intellectual property concerns with validation needs, (c) recognise open code and open data with protected access via dedicated badges, and (d) adopt Research Transparency Statements, a new reporting structure inclusive of methodological and epistemological differences in open research practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Integrity Advisors are used in Australia to provide impartial guidance to researchers who have questions about any aspect of responsible research practice. Every Australian institution conducting research must provide access to trained advisors. This national policy could be an important part of creating a safe environment for discussing research integrity issues and thus resolving issues. We conducted the first formal study of advisors, using a census of every Australian advisor to discover their workload and attitudes to their role. We estimated there are 739 advisors nationally. We received responses to our questions from 192. Most advisors had a very light workload, with an median of just 0.5 days per month. Thirteen percent of advisors had not received any training, and some advisors only discovered they were an advisor after our approach. Most advisors were positive about their ability to help colleagues deal with integrity issues. The main desired changes were for greater advertising of their role and a desire to promote good practice rather than just supporting potential issues. Advisors might be a useful policy for supporting research integrity, but some advisors need better institutional support in terms of training and raising awareness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Simulation studies are essential tools to assess statistical methods. Functioning as controlled experiments, simulations generate data from known underlying processes. However, unclear or incomplete reporting of simulation studies can impact their interpretability and reproducibility, potentially leading to the misuse of statistical methods. While Morris et al. (2019, Stat Med, 38, p. 2074) recently provided guidance on the planning and conduct of simulation studies for statistical method evaluation, there is currently no comprehensive set of reporting guidelines in ecology and evolutionary biology. Here, we propose 11 reporting items for statistical simulation studies extending on Morris and colleagues' guidance. These items span across three stages: planning, coding and analysis. We also clarify the terminology related to statistical components and the broad purposes of statistical simulation studies. To highlight our proposed reporting items with current practices, we surveyed 100 articles in ecology and evolution journals that included a simulation study evaluating a statistical method. Our survey found room for improvement in more transparent reporting to ensure clear evaluation of statistical methods. Most notably, only a small proportion of articles reported a Monte Carlo uncertainty (17%; 17 out of 98), and 32% (32 out of 100) articles did not provide code. Beyond the proposed reporting items, we discuss the benefits of open science tools to enhance the reproducibility of simulation studies. Specifically, we propose the registration of statistical simulation studies to enhance planning, reporting and collaboration. We aim to instigate discussions to improve the reporting of simulation studies for statistical method research. The reporting items we propose, along with open science tools, serve as a template for developing standards and guidelines for simulation studies evaluating statistical methods. These reporting guidelines will help enhance reproducibility and indirectly encourage more consideration in the design and conduct of these simulation studies.

Abstract Background To evaluate transparency practices in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dentistry. Methods This meta-research study included RCTs in dentistry regardless of topic, methods, or level of detail reported. Only studies in English were considered. We searched PubMed for RCTs in dentistry published in English from December 31, 2016, to December 31, 2021. The screening was performed in duplicate, and data extracted included journal and author details, dental specialty, protocol registration, data and code sharing, conflict of interest declaration, and funding information. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed. We generated maps illustrating the reporting of transparency items by country of the corresponding author and a heat table reflecting reporting levels by dental specialty. Results A total of 844 RCTs were included. Only 12.86% of studies reported any information about data and code sharing. Protocol registration was reported for 50.36% of RCTs. Conflict of interest (83.41%) and funding (71.68%) declarations were present in most studies. Conflicts of interest and funding were consistently reported regardless of country or specialty, while data and code sharing had a low level of reporting across specialties, as well as low dissemination across the world. Protocol registration exhibited considerable variability. Conclusions Considering the importance of RCTs for evidence-based dentistry, it is crucial that everyone who participates in the scientific production and dissemination process actively and consistently promotes adherence to transparent scientific standards, particularly registration of protocols, and sharing of data and code.

Abstract Objective To evaluate whether and how the radiological journals present their policies on the use of large language models (LLMs), and identify the journal characteristic variables that are associated with the presence. Methods In this meta-research study, we screened Journals from the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging Category, 2022 Journal Citation Reports, excluding journals in non-English languages and relevant documents unavailable. We assessed their LLM use policies: (1) whether the policy is present; (2) whether the policy for the authors, the reviewers, and the editors is present; and (3) whether the policy asks the author to report the usage of LLMs, the name of LLMs, the section that used LLMs, the role of LLMs, the verification of LLMs, and the potential influence of LLMs. The association between the presence of policies and journal characteristic variables was evaluated. Results The LLM use policies were presented in 43.9% (83/189) of journals, and those for the authors, the reviewers, and the editor were presented in 43.4% (82/189), 29.6% (56/189) and 25.9% (49/189) of journals, respectively. Many journals mentioned the aspects of the usage (43.4%, 82/189), the name (34.9%, 66/189), the verification (33.3%, 63/189), and the role (31.7%, 60/189) of LLMs, while the potential influence of LLMs (4.2%, 8/189), and the section that used LLMs (1.6%, 3/189) were seldomly touched. The publisher is related to the presence of LLM use policies (p

Abstract Background Engaging researchers as research subjects is key to informing the development of effective and relevant research practices. It is important to understand how best to engage researchers as research subjects. Methods A 24 factorial experiment, as part of a Multiphase Optimization Strategy, was performed to evaluate effects of four recruitment strategy components on participant opening of an emailed survey link and survey completion. Participants were members of three US-based national health research consortia. A stratified simple random sample was used to assign potential survey participants to one of 16 recruitment scenarios. Recruitment strategy components were intended to address both intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation, including: $50 gift, $1,000 raffle, altruistic messaging, and egoistic messaging. Multivariable generalized linear regression analyses adjusting for consortium estimated component effects on outcomes. Potential interactions among components were tested. Results are reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results Surveys were collected from June to December 2023. A total of 418 participants were included from the consortia, with final analytical sample of 400 eligible participants. Out of the final sample, 82% (341) opened the survey link and 35% (147) completed the survey. Altruistic messaging increased the odds of opening the survey (aOR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.35–2.69, p = 0.033), while egoistic messaging significantly reduced the odds of opening the survey (aOR 0.56, 95%CI 0.38–0.75, p = 0.08). The receipt of egoistic messaging increased the odds of completing the survey once opened (aOR 1.81, 95%CI: 1.39–2.23, p

Background Interrupted time-series (ITS) studies are commonly used to examine the effects of interventions targeted at populations. Suppression of ITS studies or results within these studies, known as reporting bias, has the potential to bias the evidence-base on a particular topic, with potential consequences for healthcare decision-making. Therefore, we aim to determine whether there is evidence of reporting bias among ITS studies. Methods We will conduct a search for published protocols of ITS studies and reports of their results in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase up to December 31, 2022. We contact the authors of the ITS studies to seek information about their study, including submission status, data for unpublished results, and reasons for non-publication or non-reporting of certain outcomes. We will examine if there is evidence of publication bias by examining whether time-to-publication is influenced by the statistical significance of the study’s results for the primary research question using Cox proportional hazards regression. We will examine whether there is evidence of discrepancies in outcomes by comparing those specified in the protocols with those in the reports of results, and we will examine whether the statistical significance of an outcome’s result is associated with how completely that result is reported using multivariable logistic regression. Finally, we will examine discrepancies between protocols and reports of results in the methods by examining the data collection processes, model characteristics, and statistical analysis methods. Discrepancies will be summarized using descriptive statistics. Discussion These findings will inform systematic reviewers and policymakers about the extent of reporting biases and may inform the development of mechanisms to reduce such biases.

The world is facing a significant demographic transition, with a substantial increase in the proportion of older persons, as well as long-lived persons (especially nonagenarians and centenarians). One of the popular beliefs is that old age is synonymous with disease and disability. However, the successful aging hypothesis suggests that those older persons with advanced chronological age who maintain their functional capacity derive from it a delay in biological aging, enhancing the quality of organic aging and regulation. Therefore, regardless of chronological age, even in cases of extreme longevity, those older adults with a successful aging phenotype and favorable functional capacity would be expected to have satisfactory post-surgical recovery with a low risk of morbidity and mortality. Currently, there is a significant gap between the availability of high-certainty surgical evidence that allows for evidence-based interventions applicable to the long-lived population—taking into account the actual conditioning factors of the health phenotype in older persons—and, above all, predictors of satisfactory post-surgical evolution. The application of meta-research to geriatric surgery emerges as a fundamental tool to address this knowledge gap and reveals opportunities and limitations that need to be resolved in the near future to establish evidence-based surgical care for older persons. The aim of this manuscript was to present a real and globally relevant scenario related to surgical care, addressing the longevity, the availability, and the quality of surgical evidence applicable to this population, and also to present variables to consider in analysis and future perspectives in research and meta-research in geriatric surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objectives: In osteopathy, it becomes necessary to produce high-quality evidence to demonstrate its effectiveness. The aim of this meta-research study is to assess the reporting quality of RCTs published in the osteopathic field. Methods: The protocol was preliminarily registered on the "Open Science Framework (OSF)" website. For reporting, we considered the PRISMA 2020 checklist. We included all the RCTs, published between 2011 and 2023, investigating the effectiveness of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) in any possible condition. The search process was conducted on four major biomedical databases including PubMed, Central, Scopus and Embase. A data extraction form was implemented to collect all relevant information. The completeness of reporting was calculated as the percentage of adherence to the CONSORT checklist; the Cochrane ROB 2 tool was considered to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in the following five major domains: randomization (D1), interventions (D2), missing data (D3), outcome measurement (D4), selective reporting (D5). Results: A total of 131 studies were included and the overall adherence was 57%, with the worst section being "other information" (42%). Studies with a lower RoB showed higher adherence to the CONSORT. The "results" section presented the highest differences as follows: D1 (−36.7%), D2 (−27.2%), D3 (−21.5%) and D5 (−25.5%). Significant correlations were also found between the preliminary protocol registration, higher journal quartile, publication in hybrid journals and the completeness of reporting (β: 19.22, CI: 14.45–24.00, p < 0.001; β: 5.41; CI: 2.80–8.02, p ≤ 0.001; β: 5.64, CI: 1.06–10.23, p = 0.016, respectively). Conclusions: The adherence to the CONSORT checklist in osteopathic RCTs is lacking. An association was found between a lower completeness of reporting and a higher RoB, a good journal ranking, publication in hybrid journals and a prospective protocol registration. Journals and authors should adopt all the strategies to adhere to reporting guidelines to guarantee generalization of the results arising from RCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on Open Science practices in Health Psychology is lacking. This meta-research study aimed to identify research question priorities and obtain consensus on the Top 5 prioritised research questions for Open Science in Health Psychology. An international Delphi consensus study was conducted. Twenty-three experts in Open Science and Health Psychology within the European Health Psychology Society (EHPS) suggested research question priorities to create a 'long-list' of items (Phase 1). Forty-three EHPS members rated the importance of these items, ranked their top five and suggested their own additional items (Phase 2). Twenty-four EHPS members received feedback on Phase 2 responses and then re-rated and re-ranked their top five research questions (Phase 3). The top five ranked research question priorities were: 1. 'To what extent are Open Science behaviours currently practised in Health Psychology?', 2. 'How can we maximise the usefulness of Open Data and Open Code resources?', 3. 'How can Open Data be increased within Health Psychology?', 4. 'What interventions are effective for increasing the adoption of Open Science in Health Psychology?' and 5. 'How can we increase free Open Access publishing in Health Psychology?'. Funding and resources should prioritise the research questions identified here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Cuadernos.info is the property of Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Facultad de Comunicaciones and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: To evaluate transparency practices in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dentistry. Methods: This meta-research study included RCTs in dentistry regardless of topic, methods, or level of detail reported. Only studies in English were considered. We searched PubMed for RCTs in dentistry published in English from December 31, 2016, to December 31, 2021. The screening was performed in duplicate, and data extracted included journal and author details, dental specialty, protocol registration, data and code sharing, conflict of interest declaration, and funding information. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed. We generated maps illustrating the reporting of transparency items by country of the corresponding author and a heat table reflecting reporting levels by dental specialty. Results: A total of 844 RCTs were included. Only 12.86% of studies reported any information about data and code sharing. Protocol registration was reported for 50.36% of RCTs. Conflict of interest (83.41%) and funding (71.68%) declarations were present in most studies. Conflicts of interest and funding were consistently reported regardless of country or specialty, while data and code sharing had a low level of reporting across specialties, as well as low dissemination across the world. Protocol registration exhibited considerable variability. Conclusions: Considering the importance of RCTs for evidence-based dentistry, it is crucial that everyone who participates in the scientific production and dissemination process actively and consistently promotes adherence to transparent scientific standards, particularly registration of protocols, and sharing of data and code. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study is an evaluation of published papers on machine learning as employed in mastitis research. The aim of this study was the quantitative evaluation of the scientific content and the bibliometric details of these papers. In total, 69 papers were found to combine machine learning in mastitis research and were considered in detail. There was a progressive yearly increase in published papers, which originated from 23 countries (mostly from China or the United States of America). Most original articles (n = 59) referred to work involving cattle, relevant to mastitis in individual animals. Most articles described work related to the development and diagnosis of the infection. Fewer articles described work on the antibiotic resistance of pathogens isolated from cases of mastitis and on the treatment of the infection. In most studies (98.5% of published papers), supervised machine learning models were employed. Most frequently, decision trees and support vector machines were employed in the studies described. 'Machine learning' and 'mastitis' were the most frequently used keywords. The papers were published in 39 journals, with most frequent publications in Computers and Electronics in Agriculture and Journal of Dairy Science. The median number of cited references in the papers was 39 (interquartile range: 31). There were 435 co-authors in the papers (mean: 6.2 per paper, median: 5, min.–max.: 1–93) and 356 individual authors. The median number of citations received by the papers was 4 (min.–max.: 0–70). Most papers (72.5%) were published in open-access mode. This study summarized the characteristics of papers on mastitis and artificial intelligence. Future studies could explore using these methodologies at farm level, and extending them to other animal species, while unsupervised learning techniques might also prove to be useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate whether and how the radiological journals present their policies on the use of large language models (LLMs), and identify the journal characteristic variables that are associated with the presence. Methods: In this meta-research study, we screened Journals from the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging Category, 2022 Journal Citation Reports, excluding journals in non-English languages and relevant documents unavailable. We assessed their LLM use policies: (1) whether the policy is present; (2) whether the policy for the authors, the reviewers, and the editors is present; and (3) whether the policy asks the author to report the usage of LLMs, the name of LLMs, the section that used LLMs, the role of LLMs, the verification of LLMs, and the potential influence of LLMs. The association between the presence of policies and journal characteristic variables was evaluated. Results: The LLM use policies were presented in 43.9% (83/189) of journals, and those for the authors, the reviewers, and the editor were presented in 43.4% (82/189), 29.6% (56/189) and 25.9% (49/189) of journals, respectively. Many journals mentioned the aspects of the usage (43.4%, 82/189), the name (34.9%, 66/189), the verification (33.3%, 63/189), and the role (31.7%, 60/189) of LLMs, while the potential influence of LLMs (4.2%, 8/189), and the section that used LLMs (1.6%, 3/189) were seldomly touched. The publisher is related to the presence of LLM use policies (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The presence of LLM use policies is suboptimal in radiological journals. A reporting guideline is encouraged to facilitate reporting quality and transparency. Critical relevance statement: It may facilitate the quality and transparency of the use of LLMs in scientific writing if a shared complete reporting guideline is developed by stakeholders and then endorsed by journals. Key Points: The policies on LLM use in radiological journals are unexplored. Some of the radiological journals presented policies on LLM use. A shared complete reporting guideline for LLM use is desired. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Engaging researchers as research subjects is key to informing the development of effective and relevant research practices. It is important to understand how best to engage researchers as research subjects. Methods: A 24 factorial experiment, as part of a Multiphase Optimization Strategy, was performed to evaluate effects of four recruitment strategy components on participant opening of an emailed survey link and survey completion. Participants were members of three US-based national health research consortia. A stratified simple random sample was used to assign potential survey participants to one of 16 recruitment scenarios. Recruitment strategy components were intended to address both intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation, including: $50 gift, $1,000 raffle, altruistic messaging, and egoistic messaging. Multivariable generalized linear regression analyses adjusting for consortium estimated component effects on outcomes. Potential interactions among components were tested. Results are reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: Surveys were collected from June to December 2023. A total of 418 participants were included from the consortia, with final analytical sample of 400 eligible participants. Out of the final sample, 82% (341) opened the survey link and 35% (147) completed the survey. Altruistic messaging increased the odds of opening the survey (aOR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.35–2.69, p = 0.033), while egoistic messaging significantly reduced the odds of opening the survey (aOR 0.56, 95%CI 0.38–0.75, p = 0.08). The receipt of egoistic messaging increased the odds of completing the survey once opened (aOR 1.81, 95%CI: 1.39–2.23, p < 0.05). There was a significant negative interaction effect between the altruistic appeal and egoistic messaging strategies for survey completion outcome. Monetary incentives did not a have a significant impact on survey completion. Conclusion: Intrinsic motivation is likely to be a greater driver of health researcher participation in survey research than extrinsic motivation. Altruistic and egoistic messaging may differentially impact initial interest and survey completion and when combined may lead to improved rates of recruitment, but not survey completion. Further research is needed to determine how to best optimize message content and whether the effects observed are modified by survey burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a sample of 70,399 published p‐values from 192 meta‐analyses, we empirically estimate the counterfactual distribution of p‐values in the absence of any biases. Comparing observed p‐values with counterfactually expected p‐values allows us to estimate how many p‐values are published as being statistically significant when they should have been published as non‐significant. We estimate the extent of selectively reported p‐values to range between 57.7% and 71.9% of the significant p‐values. The counterfactual p‐value distribution also allows us to assess shifts of p‐values along the entire distribution of published p‐values, revealing that particularly very small p‐values (p < 0.001) are unexpectedly abundant in the published literature. Subsample analysis suggests that the extent of selective reporting is reduced in research fields that use experimental designs, analyze microeconomics research questions, and have at least some adequately powered studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this meta‐epidemiological study was to explore the impact of attrition rates on treatment effect estimates in randomised trials of chronic inflammatory diseases (CID) treated with biological and targeted synthetic disease‐modifying drugs. We sampled trials from Cochrane reviews. Attrition rates and primary endpoint results were retrieved from trial publications; Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated from the odds of withdrawing in the experimental intervention compared to the control comparison groups (i.e., differential attrition), as well as the odds of achieving a clinical response (i.e., the trial outcome). Trials were combined using random effects restricted maximum likelihood meta‐regression models and associations between estimates of treatment effects and attrition rates were analysed. From 37 meta‐analyses, 179 trials were included, and 163 were analysed (301 randomised comparisons; n = 62,220 patients). Overall, the odds of withdrawal were lower in the experimental compared to control groups (random effects summary OR = 0.45, 95% CI, 0.41–0.50). The corresponding overall treatment effects were large (random effects summary OR = 4.43, 95% CI 3.92–4.99) with considerable heterogeneity across interventions and clinical specialties (I2 = 85.7%). The ORs estimating treatment effect showed larger treatment benefits when the differential attrition was more prominent with more attrition in the control group (OR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.96). Higher attrition rates from the control arm are associated with larger estimated benefits of treatments with biological or targeted synthetic disease‐modifying drugs in CID trials; differential attrition may affect estimates of treatment benefit in randomised trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of bispectral index (BIS) to reduce intra-operative awareness (IOA) have reported conflicting results. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to consolidate results from RCTs to assess the efficacy of BIS in reducing IOA when compared to controls. Secondary outcomes included time to extubation, time to spontaneous and/or verbal eye opening, PACU discharge time, and utilization of inhaled anesthetics. Methods: RCTs which reported on one of the primary and/or secondary outcomes were included. Literature search utilized keywords "randomized control trial" and "intraoperative awareness." Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5. Results: Twenty-seven RCTs were included in the study with a total of 35,585 patients, with 18,146 patients in the BIS and 17,439 in the control group. Eighteen of 14,062 patients (0.12%) and 42 of 16,765 (0.25%) reported definite IOA in the BIS and control group, respectively, with no statistically significant difference. BIS was effective in reducing the time to spontaneous eye opening by an average of 1.3 minutes and the time to extubation by an average of 1.97 minutes. There was no difference in PACU discharge times among the groups. There was a significant decrease in consumption of sevoflurane but no difference in desflurane and propofol compared to the control group. Conclusion: While BIS monitoring results in decreased incidence of intra-operative awareness by half, it was not statistically significant. BIS provides modest benefits with regard to reducing the time to extubation, the time to spontaneous eye opening, and consumption of sevoflurane. Level of evidence: I. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) enhance health care and aid clinicians' decisions. Aim: To evaluate the quality of clinical guidelines in paediatric dentistry using the AGREE II tool. Design: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, LIVIVO, Lilacs, international guidelines websites, scientific societies, and gray literature were searched until September 2021. We included paediatric dental clinical guidelines and excluded drafts or guidelines for patients with special needs. Two independent reviewers performed quality assessment using the APPRAISAL OF GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH & EVALUATION II (AGREE II) instrument. We calculated the mean overall domain scores (95% confidence interval) for each guideline. We used regression analysis to correlate the score of overall assessment and the six domains of AGREE II with guideline characteristics. Results: Forty‐four guidelines were included in this study. Highest mean score was for Domain 4 (Clarity of Presentation; 58%, 95% CI: 50.8–64.9), whereas the lowest was for Domain 5 (Applicability; 16%, 95% CI: 10.8–21.4). The reporting quality was improved in Domains 1–5 with reporting checklists (p <.001), whereas that of Domain 6 was improved by decreasing years since publication (p =.047). Conclusion: Paediatric dental guidelines do not comply with the methodological quality standard, especially in Domain 5 (Applicability). The AGREE reporting checklist should be implemented with a system to evaluate the certainty of evidence for future guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Interrupted time-series (ITS) studies are commonly used to examine the effects of interventions targeted at populations. Suppression of ITS studies or results within these studies, known as reporting bias, has the potential to bias the evidence-base on a particular topic, with potential consequences for healthcare decision-making. Therefore, we aim to determine whether there is evidence of reporting bias among ITS studies. Methods We will conduct a search for published protocols of ITS studies and reports of their results in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase up to December 31, 2022. We contact the authors of the ITS studies to seek information about their study, including submission status, data for unpublished results, and reasons for non-publication or non-reporting of certain outcomes. We will examine if there is evidence of publication bias by examining whether time-to-publication is influenced by the statistical significance of the study’s results for the primary research question using Cox proportional hazards regression. We will examine whether there is evidence of discrepancies in outcomes by comparing those specified in the protocols with those in the reports of results, and we will examine whether the statistical significance of an outcome’s result is associated with how completely that result is reported using multivariable logistic regression. Finally, we will examine discrepancies between protocols and reports of results in the methods by examining the data collection processes, model characteristics, and statistical analysis methods. Discrepancies will be summarized using descriptive statistics. Discussion These findings will inform systematic reviewers and policymakers about the extent of reporting biases and may inform the development of mechanisms to reduce such biases.

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of bispectral index (BIS) to reduce intra-operative awareness (IOA) have reported conflicting results. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to consolidate results from RCTs to assess the efficacy of BIS in reducing IOA when compared to controls. Secondary outcomes included time to extubation, time to spontaneous and/or verbal eye opening, PACU discharge time, and utilization of inhaled anesthetics. Methods: RCTs which reported on one of the primary and/or secondary outcomes were included. Literature search utilized keywords “randomized control trial” and “intraoperative awareness.” Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5. Results: Twenty-seven RCTs were included in the study with a total of 35,585 patients, with 18,146 patients in the BIS and 17,439 in the control group. Eighteen of 14,062 patients (0.12%) and 42 of 16,765 (0.25%) reported definite IOA in the BIS and control group, respectively, with no statistically significant difference. BIS was effective in reducing the time to spontaneous eye opening by an average of 1.3 minutes and the time to extubation by an average of 1.97 minutes. There was no difference in PACU discharge times among the groups. There was a significant decrease in consumption of sevoflurane but no difference in desflurane and propofol compared to the control group. Conclusion: While BIS monitoring results in decreased incidence of intra-operative awareness by half, it was not statistically significant. BIS provides modest benefits with regard to reducing the time to extubation, the time to spontaneous eye opening, and consumption of sevoflurane. Level of evidence: I.

Abstract Background Despite the improvements in the completeness of reporting of randomized trial protocols after the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trial (SPIRIT) guidelines, many items remain poorly reported. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of using SPIRIT-tailored templates for trial protocols to improve the completeness of reporting of the protocols that master’s students write as part of their master’s theses. Methods Before and after experimental study performed at the University Master’s Degree in Orthopaedic Manual Physiotherapy of the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain). While students in the post-intervention period were instructed to use a trial protocol template that was tailored to SPIRIT, students in the pre-intervention period did not use the template. Primary outcome: Difference between the pre- and post-intervention periods in the mean number of adequately reported items (0–10 scale). The outcomes were evaluated independently and in duplicate by two blinded assessors. Students and their supervisors were not aware that they were part of a research project. For the statistical analysis, we used a generalized linear regression model (dependent variable: number of adequately reported items in the protocol; independent variables: intervention period, call, language). Results Thirty-four trial protocols were included (17, pre-intervention; 17, post-intervention). Protocols produced during the post-intervention period (mean: 8.24; SD: 1.52) were more completely reported than those produced during the pre-intervention period (mean: 6.35; SD: 1.80); adjusted difference: 1.79 (95% CI: 0.58 to 3.00). Conclusions SPIRIT-based templates could be used to improve the completeness of reporting of randomized trial protocols.

Dissertations are a foundational scientific product; they are the formative product that early‐career scientists create and share original knowledge. The methodological approaches used in dissertations vary with the research field. In plant ecology, these approaches include observations, experiments (field or controlled environment), literature reviews, theoretical approaches, or analyses of existing data (including "big data"). Recently, concerns have been raised about the rise of "big data" studies and the loss of observational and field‐based studies in ecology, but such trends have not been formally quantified. Therefore, we examined how the emphasis on each of these categories has changed over time and whether male and female authors differ in the methods employed. We found remarkable temporal consistency, with observational studies being dominant over the entire time span examined. There was an increase in the number of approaches employed per dissertation, with increases in analyses of databases and theoretical studies adding to rather than replacing traditional methodologies (like observations and field experiments). The representation of women increased over time. There were some differences in the approaches taken by men and women, which requires further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meta‐research, also known as "research on research" is a field of study that investigates the methods, reporting, reproducibility, evaluation, and incentives along the research continuum. Meta‐research literacy is imperative to ensure high quality, transparent and reproducible primary data or meta‐research products. In this commentary, we propose that early career researchers should be trained in meta‐research as a foundation to develop a deeper understanding of the research process and ability to appraise the research literature and design high‐quality original studies, irrespective of their chosen field of study. We discuss the importance of meta‐research and open science from the perspective of an early career trainee, highlighting essential areas for growth and obstacles one may encounter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Educational Studies (1673-1298) is the property of Journal of Educational Studies Editorial Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: To assess the use of evidence-based research (EBR) approach in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture-related therapies for primary dysmenorrhea (PD). Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Chinese Biomedical Database, and China Science and Technology Journal Database were searched from January 2013 to December 2022 for RCTs of acupuncture on PD. The full text and references of each RCT were read to assess whether systematic reviews (SRs) or other types of studies with similar research questions and end-users' perspectives were cited to justify and design the trial. In addition, the discussion section were analyzed to evaluate whether trials placed the new result in the existing SRs to draw a conclusion. Multivariable logistic regression was used to find variables that associated with 3 aspects of EBR approach: (1) citing clinical studies for justification, (2) citing relevant studies that obtain the perspectives of end users, and (3) citing clinical studies for results discussion. Results: Of 473 RCTs included, 45.67% (216) of the trials cited relevant similar studies, 21.56% (102) referenced to the studies that collected end-users' perspectives, and 10.99% (52) placed result in the context of the previous research. Few RCTs appropriately applied EBR approach. Among all the included studies, 3.17% (15) of the trials used SRs to inform study questions but none of them used updated SRs with acceptable quality; 1.05% (5) of the trials cited SRs of end-user's perspectives in the justification and design of the study, and only 1 trial added results in existing SR to draw a conclusion. Year of publication, language, funding, registration, ethical approval and number of sites were significantly associated with 1 of the 3 aspects of EBR approach. Conclusions: Few RCTs in acupuncture-related therapies for PD used the EBR approach to minimize research redundancy. Researchers, research institutes, funding agencies, ethics committees, journals and peer reviewers in acupuncture should make efforts to use and promote the EBR approach to ensure the value of new trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the improvements in the completeness of reporting of randomized trial protocols after the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trial (SPIRIT) guidelines, many items remain poorly reported. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of using SPIRIT-tailored templates for trial protocols to improve the completeness of reporting of the protocols that master's students write as part of their master's theses. Methods: Before and after experimental study performed at the University Master's Degree in Orthopaedic Manual Physiotherapy of the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain). While students in the post-intervention period were instructed to use a trial protocol template that was tailored to SPIRIT, students in the pre-intervention period did not use the template. Primary outcome: Difference between the pre- and post-intervention periods in the mean number of adequately reported items (0–10 scale). The outcomes were evaluated independently and in duplicate by two blinded assessors. Students and their supervisors were not aware that they were part of a research project. For the statistical analysis, we used a generalized linear regression model (dependent variable: number of adequately reported items in the protocol; independent variables: intervention period, call, language). Results: Thirty-four trial protocols were included (17, pre-intervention; 17, post-intervention). Protocols produced during the post-intervention period (mean: 8.24; SD: 1.52) were more completely reported than those produced during the pre-intervention period (mean: 6.35; SD: 1.80); adjusted difference: 1.79 (95% CI: 0.58 to 3.00). Conclusions: SPIRIT-based templates could be used to improve the completeness of reporting of randomized trial protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Meta-research in which researchers are the study subjects can illuminate how to better support researchers and enhance the development of research capacity. Comprehensively compiling the literature in this area can help define best practices for research capacity development and reveal gaps in the literature. However, there are challenges to assessing and synthesizing the breadth of the meta-research literature produced. Methods: In this article, we discuss the current barriers to conducting literature reviews on meta-research and strategies to address these barriers. We then outline proposed methods for conducting a scoping review on meta-research with researchers as study subjects. Discussion: Due to its interdisciplinary nature, broad scope, and difficult to pinpoint terminology, little is known about the state of meta-research with researchers as the study subjects. For this reason, there is a need for a scoping review that will identify research performed in which researchers were the study subjects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many empirical studies on disinformation use fake news datasets and real news datasets to compare them. Such studies often appeal to reliability (or confidence, trustworthiness, credibility, accuracy) as a factor to characterize and evaluate the message, medium, source and perception of the audience. We selected the 50 most cited articles in WoS and Scopus (2017- 2022) on fake news and reliability and investigated where the researchers extracted their samples. That is, we propose a meta-research aimed at evaluating how reliable such samples are. We extract and analyze the criteria, indices, metrics, resources and databases that researchers declare to justify their selection of both authentic and false news. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate open science policies of imaging journals, and compliance to these policies in published articles. Methods: From imaging journals listed we extracted open science policy details: protocol registration, reporting guidelines, funding, ethics and conflicts of interest (COI), data sharing, and open access publishing. The 10 most recently published studies from each journal were assessed to determine adherence to these policies. We calculated the proportion of open science policies into an Open Science Score (OSS) for all journals and articles. We evaluated relationships between OSS and journal/article level variables. Results: 82 journals/820 articles were included. The OSS of journals and articles was 58.3% and 31.8%, respectively. Of the journals, 65.9% had registration and 78.1% had reporting guideline policies. 79.3% of journals were members of COPE, 81.7% had plagiarism policies, 100% required disclosure of funding, and 97.6% required disclosure of COI and ethics approval. 81.7% had data sharing policies and 15.9% were fully open access. 7.8% of articles had a registered protocol, 8.4% followed a reporting guideline, 77.4% disclosed funding, 88.7% disclosed COI, and 85.6% reported ethics approval. 12.3% of articles shared their data. 51% of articles were available through open access or as a preprint. OSS was higher for journal with DOAJ membership (80% vs 54.2%; P <.0001). Impact factor was not correlated with journal OSS. Knowledge synthesis articles has a higher OSS scores (44.5%) than prospective/retrospective studies (32.6%, 30.0%, P <.0001). Conclusion: Imaging journals endorsed just over half of open science practices considered; however, the application of these practices at the article level was lower. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS), also known as exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD), is typically caused by strenuous and/or unaccustomed physical exercise. DOMS/EIMD manifests itself in reduced muscle strength and performance levels, increased muscle soreness, swelling, and elevated levels of inflammatory biomarkers. Numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) of a wide variety of physiotherapy interventions for reducing the signs and symptoms of DOMS/EIMD have been published. However, these SRs often arrive at contradictory conclusions, impeding decision-making processes. Objective: We will systematically review the current evidence on clinical outcomes (efficacy, safety) of physiotherapy interventions for the treatment of DOMS/EIMD in healthy adults. We will also assess the quality of the evidence and identify, map, and summarise data from the available SRs. Method: Umbrella review with evidence map and meta-meta-analyses. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos and PEDro will be searched from January 1998 until February 2024. SRs of RCTs of any treatment used by physiotherapists (e.g., low-level laser therapy, electrical stimulation, heat/cold therapy, ultrasound, magnets, massage, manual therapies) to treat DOMS/EIMD in healthy adults will be eligible. Narrative/non-systematic reviews, studies of adolescents/children and medically compromised individuals, of complementary therapies, dietary, nutritional, or pharmacological interventions, as well as self-administered interventions, or those published before 1998, will be excluded. AMSTAR 2 will be used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included SRs. Corrected covered area, will be computed for assessing overlaps among included SRs, and an evidence map will be prepared to describe the credibility of evidence for interventions analysed in the relevant SRs. Discussion: DOMS/EIMD is a complex condition, and there is no consensus regarding the standard of clinical/physiotherapeutic care. By critically evaluating the existing evidence, we aim to inform clinicians about the most promising therapies for DOMS/EIMD. This umbrella review has the potential to identify gaps in the existing evidence base that would inform future research. The protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024485501]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Prognostic and diagnostic models must work in their intended clinical setting, proven via "external evaluation", preferably by authors uninvolved with model development. By systematic review, we determined the proportion of models published in high-impact radiological journals that are evaluated subsequently. Methods: We hand-searched three radiological journals for multivariable diagnostic/prognostic models 2013–2015 inclusive, developed using regression. We assessed completeness of data presentation to allow subsequent external evaluation. We then searched literature to August 2022 to identify external evaluations of these index models. Results: We identified 98 index studies (73 prognostic; 25 diagnostic) describing 145 models. Only 15 (15%) index studies presented an evaluation (two external). No model was updated. Only 20 (20%) studies presented a model equation. Just 7 (15%) studies developing Cox models presented a risk table, and just 4 (9%) presented the baseline hazard. Two (4%) studies developing non-Cox models presented the intercept. Just 20 (20%) articles presented a Kaplan–Meier curve of the final model. The 98 index studies attracted 4224 citations (including 559 self-citations), median 28 per study. We identified just six (6%) subsequent external evaluations of an index model, five of which were external evaluations by researchers uninvolved with model development, and from a different institution. Conclusions: Very few prognostic or diagnostic models published in radiological literature are evaluated externally, suggesting wasted research effort and resources. Authors' published models should present data sufficient to allow external evaluation by others. To achieve clinical utility, researchers should concentrate on model evaluation and updating rather than continual redevelopment. Clinical relevance statement: The large majority of prognostic and diagnostic models published in high-impact radiological journals are never evaluated. It would be more efficient for researchers to evaluate existing models rather than practice continual redevelopment. Key Points: • Systematic review of highly cited radiological literature identified few diagnostic or prognostic models that were evaluated subsequently by researchers uninvolved with the original model. • Published radiological models frequently omit important information necessary for others to perform an external evaluation: Only 20% of studies presented a model equation or nomogram. • A large proportion of research citing published models focuses on redevelopment and ignores evaluation and updating, which would be a more efficient use of research resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was the presentation of quantitative characteristics regarding the scientific content and bibliometric details of the relevant publications. In total, 156 papers were considered. Most papers presented original studies (n = 135), and fewer were reviews (n = 21). Most original articles (n = 101) referred to work involving cattle. Most original articles described work related to the diagnosis (n = 72) or pathogenesis (n = 62) of mastitis. Most original articles included field work (n = 75), whilst fewer included experimental (n = 31) or laboratory (n = 30) work. The tissue assessed most frequently in the studies was milk (n = 59). Milk was assessed more frequently in studies on the diagnosis (61.1% of relevant studies) or pathogenesis (30.6%) of the infection, but mammary tissue was assessed more frequently in studies on the treatment (31.0%). In total, 47 pathogens were included in the studies described; most were Gram-positive bacteria (n = 34). The three bacteria most frequently included in the studies were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 55 articles), Escherichia coli (n = 31) and Streptococcus uberis (n = 19). The proteomics technology employed more often in the respective studies was liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), either on its own (n = 56) or in combination with other technologies (n = 40). The median year of publication of articles involving bioinformatics or LC-MS/MS and bioinformatics was the most recent: 2022. The 156 papers were published in 78 different journals, most frequently in the Journal of Proteomics (n = 16 papers) and the Journal of Dairy Science (n = 12). The median number of cited references in the papers was 48. In the papers, there were 1143 co-authors (mean: 7.3 ± 0.3 co-authors per paper, median: 7, min.–max.: 1–19) and 742 individual authors. Among them, 15 authors had published at least seven papers (max.: 10). Further, there were 218 individual authors who were the first or last authors in the papers. Most papers were submitted for open access (n = 79). The median number of citations received by the 156 papers was 12 (min.–max.: 0–339), and the median yearly number of citations was 2.0 (min.–max.: 0.0–29.5). The h-index of the papers was 33, and the m-index was 2. The increased number of cited references in papers and international collaboration in the respective study were the variables associated with most citations to published papers. This is the first ever scientometrics evaluation of proteomics studies, the results of which highlighted the characteristics of published papers on mastitis and proteomics. The use of proteomics in mastitis research has focused on the elucidation of pathogenesis and diagnosis of the infection; LC-MS/MS has been established as the most frequently used proteomics technology, although the use of bioinformatics has also emerged recently as a useful tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We tested whether large language models (LLMs) can help predict results from a complex behavioural science experiment. In study 1, we investigated the performance of the widely used LLMs GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in forecasting the empirical findings of a large-scale experimental study of emotions, gender, and social perceptions. We found that GPT-4, but not GPT-3.5, matched the performance of a cohort of 119 human experts, with correlations of 0.89 (GPT-4), 0.07 (GPT-3.5) and 0.87 (human experts) between aggregated forecasts and realized effect sizes. In study 2, providing participants from a university subject pool the opportunity to query a GPT-4 powered chatbot significantly increased the accuracy of their forecasts. Results indicate promise for artificial intelligence (AI) to help anticipate—at scale and minimal cost—which claims about human behaviour will find empirical support and which ones will not. Our discussion focuses on avenues for human–AI collaboration in science.

The field of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) has garnered increasing attention due to its holistic approach to health and well-being. While the quantity of published research about TCIM has increased exponentially, critics have argued that the field faces challenges related to methodological rigour, reproducibility, and overall quality. This article proposes meta-research as one approach to evaluating and improving the quality of TCIM research. Meta-research, also known as research about research, can be defined as “the study of research itself: its methods, reporting, reproducibility, evaluation, and incentives”. By systematically evaluating methodological rigour, identifying biases, and promoting transparency, meta-research can enhance the reliability and credibility of TCIM research. Specific topics of interest that are discussed in this article include the following: 1) study design and research methodology, 2) reporting of research, 3) research ethics, integrity, and misconduct, 4) replicability and reproducibility, 5) peer review and journal editorial practices, 6) research funding: grants and awards, and 7) hiring, promotion, and tenure. For each topic, we provide case examples to illustrate meta-research applications in TCIM. We argue that meta-research initiatives can contribute to maintaining public trust, safeguarding research integrity, and advancing evidence based TCIM practice, while challenges include navigating methodological complexities, biases, and disparities in funding and academic recognition. Future directions involve tailored research methodologies, interdisciplinary collaboration, policy implications, and capacity building in meta-research.

Abstract Background Prospective registration of clinical trials is mandated by various regulations. However, clinical trial registries like ClinicalTrials.gov allow registry entries to be updated at any time, and key study elements, including the start date, may change before the first patient is enrolled. If a trial changes its start date after recruiting began, however, it may indicate a reason for concern. This study aimed to measure the rate of “retroactively prospective” trials. This refers to trials that are originally registered retrospectively, with the start date before the registration date, but that retroactively change their start date to be after the registration date, making them appear as if they were prospectively registered. Methods We retrieved clinical trial history data for all clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with a first registration date in the year 2015 (N = 11,908). Using automated analyses, we determined the timepoints of registration in relation to the start date of the trial over time. For retroactively prospective trials and a set of control trials, we manually checked the accompanying publications to determine which start date they report and whether they report changes to the start date. Results We found 235 clinical trials to be retroactively prospective, comprising 2.0% of all clinical trials in our sample of 11,908 trials. Among the 113 retroactively prospective clinical trials with an accompanying publication, 12 (10.6%) explicitly stated in the publication that they had been prospectively registered. Conclusions Retroactively prospective trial registration happens in one in 50 trials. While these changes to the start date could be mistakes or legitimate edits based on the most up-to-date information, they could also indicate a retrospectively registered trial that has been made to appear as a prospectively registered trial, which would lead to biases unapparent to reviewers. Our results point to the need for more transparent reporting of changes to a trial’s details and have implications for the review and conduct of clinical trials, with our fully automated and freely available tools allowing reviewers or editors to detect these changes. Trial registration The preregistered protocol of our study is available via https://osf.io/rvq53 . The most recent version of the protocol lists all deviations from the original study plan, including the rationale behind the changes, and additional analyses that were conducted.

Abstract Systematic reviews are an essential tool in identifying knowledge gaps and synthesizing evidence from in vivo animal research to improve human health. The review process follows an explicit and systematic methodology to minimize bias, but is not immune to biases or methodological flaws. Pre-registering a systematic review protocol has several benefits, including avoiding unplanned duplication of reviews, reducing reporting biases, and providing structure throughout the review process. It also helps to align the opinions of review team members and can shield researchers from post-hoc critique. PROSPERO4animals is the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) for the preregistration of systematic review of animal studies. As administrators, here we provide 10 tips to facilitate pre-registration in PROSPERO4animals. These tips address common difficulties that both beginners and experienced researchers may face when pre-registering their systematic review protocols. This article aims to help authors write and register a detailed systematic review protocol on PROSPERO4animals.

Present-day publications on human genes primarily feature genes that already appeared in many publications prior to completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003. These patterns persist despite the subsequent adoption of high-throughput technologies, which routinely identify novel genes associated with biological processes and disease. Although several hypotheses for bias in the selection of genes as research targets have been proposed, their explanatory powers have not yet been compared. Our analysis suggests that understudied genes are systematically abandoned in favor of better-studied genes between the completion of -omics experiments and the reporting of results. Understudied genes remain abandoned by studies that cite these -omics experiments. Conversely, we find that publications on understudied genes may even accrue a greater number of citations. Among 45 biological and experimental factors previously proposed to affect which genes are being studied, we find that 33 are significantly associated with the choice of hit genes presented in titles and abstracts of -omics studies. To promote the investigation of understudied genes, we condense our insights into a tool, find my understudied genes (FMUG), that allows scientists to engage with potential bias during the selection of hits. We demonstrate the utility of FMUG through the identification of genes that remain understudied in vertebrate aging. FMUG is developed in Flutter and is available for download at fmug.amaral.northwestern.edu as a MacOS/Windows app. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A snapshot of communication research in Spain that uses qualitative methods as the dominant methodological perspective is presented. We conduct a content analysis to study the characteristics, objects and techniques that predominate in a census of 1,025 scientific productions from 2007 to 2018, which includes doctoral theses, projects and articles published in scientific journals. In the indexed publications, there is a certain lack of qualitative articles, despite the importance they have in doctoral theses and research projects. These researches use or triangulate qualitative methods, but not all techniques are used equally. Communication studies frequently resort to discourse analysis and in-depth interviews, but the presence of observations and discussion groups is minimal. The objects of study are also varied, although audiovisual formats prevail over journalistic formats and there is a growing interest in digital media and formats. Finally, at the author level, the results reveal parity, although the gender gap in the highest level studies is worrying. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]