Can Orthopaedics become the Gold Standard for Reproducibility? A Roadmap to Success
Fladie, I. A.; Evans, S.; Checketts, J.; Tritz, D.; Norris, B.; Vassar, B. M.
Show abstract
BackgroundScientific research is replete with poor accessibility to data, materials, and protocol, which limits the reproducibility of a study. Transparency with regard to materials, protocols, and raw data sets enhances reproducibility by providing the critical information necessary to verify, replicate, and resynthesize research findings. The extent to which transparency and reproducibility exist in the field of orthopaedics is unclear. In our study, we aimed to evaluate transparency and reproducibility-related characteristics of randomly sampled publications in orthopaedic journals.\n\nMethodsWe used the National Library of Medicine catalog to identify English language and MEDLINE-indexed orthopaedic journals. From the 74 journals meeting our inclusion criteria, we randomly sampled 300 publications using a refined PubMed search that were published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. Two investigators were trained for data extraction and analysis. Both investigators were blinded and independently extracted data from the 300 studies.\n\nResultsOur initial search yielded 68,102 publications, from which we drew a random sample of 300 publications. Of these 300 publications, 286 were screened for empirical data and 14 were inaccessible. For analysis purposes, we excluded publications without empirical data. Of the 182 with empirical data, 13 studies (7.1%) included a data availability statement, 9 (4.9%) reported materials were available, none (0.0%) provided analysis scripts, 2 (1.1%) provided access to the protocol used, 5 (2.7%) were preregistered, and only 2 (1.1%) provided a statement about being a replicated study.\n\nConclusionsComponents necessary for reproducibility are lacking in orthopaedic surgery journals. The vast majority of publications did not provide data or material availability statements, protocols, or analysis scripts, and had no preregistration statements. Intervention is needed to improve reproducibility in the field of orthopaedics. The current state of reproducibility in orthopaedic surgery could be improved by combined efforts from funding agencies, authors, peer reviewers, and journals alike.\n\nLevel of EvidenceN/A
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Delayed lubricin injection improves cartilage repair tissue quality in an in vivo rabbit osteochondral defect model 92%
- Muscle Contraction is Essential for Tendon Healing and Muscle Function Recovery after Achilles Tendon Rupture and Surgical Repair 92%
- Learning on a Limb: An outreach module to engage high school students in orthopaedics 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Buried or Exposed Kirschner Wire for the Management of Hand and Forearm Fractures: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression 94%
- Effectiveness of early versus delayed rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair: systematic review and meta-analyses 94%
- Woman Authorship in Pre-print Versus Peer-Reviewed Oral Health-Related Publications: A Two-Year Observational Study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Uncertainty extraction and verification for the Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist Priority Setting Partnership: A proposed methodology for Priority Setting Partnerships with the James Lind Alliance 94%
- The devil is in the details: Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopedic clinical trials 94%
- Exploring Risk Factors for Comorbid Depression in Osteoarthritis: A Scoping Review Protocol 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Nature's design of the osteochondral unit: microstructural differences between terrestrial and aquatic mammals 91%
- Metformin regulates bone marrow stromal cells to accelerate bone healing in diabetic mice 91%
- Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- A cross-sectional audit and survey of Open Science and Data Sharing practices at The Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital 93%
- Inflated citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project 91%
- Retrospective analysis of the use of osteoporosis medication at the presentation of fragility fractures in a predominantly Hispanic population. 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.