Evaluation of Reproducibility in Urology Publications
Rauh, S. L.; Johnson, B. S.; Bowers, A.; Tritz, D.; Vassar, M.
Show abstract
Take Home MessageMany components of transparency and reproducibility are lacking in urology publications, making study replication, at best, difficult.\n\nIntroductionReproducibility is essential for the integrity of scientific research. Reproducibility is measured by the ability of investigators to replicate the outcomes of an original publication by using the same materials and procedures.\n\nMethodsWe sampled 300 publications in the field of urology for assessment of multiple indicators of reproducibility, including material availability, raw data availability, analysis script availability, pre-registration information, links to protocols, and whether the publication was freely available to the public. Publications were also assessed for statements about conflicts of interest and funding sources.\n\nResultsOf the 300 sample publications, 171 contained empirical data and could be analyzed for reproducibility. Of the analyzed articles, 0.58% (1/171) provided links to protocols, and none of the studies provided analysis scripts. Additionally, 95.91% (164/171) did not provide accessible raw data, 97.53% (158/162) did not provide accessible materials, and 95.32% (163/171) did not state they were pre-registered.\n\nConclusionCurrent urology research does not consistently provide the components needed to reproduce original studies. Collaborative efforts from investigators and journal editors are needed to improve research quality, while minimizing waste and patient risk.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Intraoperative calculus or hemorrhage in transurethral seminal vesiculoscopy as a risk factor for recurrent hemospermia 94%
- Investigating the Nature of Open Science Practices Across Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Journals: An Audit 94%
- Wound Complications Following Surgery to the Lymph Nodes: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Development, validation, and usage of metrics to evaluate clinical research hypothesis quality 92%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 92%
- Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: A systematic review 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Reporting animal research: Explanation and Elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2019 91%
- Almost significant: trends and P values in the use of phrases describing marginally significant results in 567,758 randomized controlled trials published between 1990 and 2020 91%
- The ARRIVE guidelines 2019: updated guidelines for reporting animal research 91%
"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.