Systematic reviewers should aim to search a sufficient number of databases to minimise selection bias. Additionally, systematic reviewers should include information specialists in designing SR methodology, as this may improve systematic review quality.

We examined the use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses from clinical neurology. A review of publications between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014 from five neuroscience journals (Annals of Neurology, Brain, Lancet Neurology, Neurology, and The Neuroscientist) was performed to identify eligible systematic reviews. The systematic reviews comprising the final sample were independently appraised to determine if clinical trials registries had been included as part of the search process. Studies acknowledging the use of a trials registry were further examined to determine whether trial data had been incorporated into the analysis. The initial search yielded 194 studies, of which 78 systematic reviews met the selection criteria. Of those, five acknowledged the use of a specific clinical trials registry: four reviewed unpublished trial data and two incorporated unpublished trial data into their results. Based on our sample of systematic reviews, there was no increase in the use of trials registries in systematic review searches over time. Few systematic reviews published in clinical neurology journals included data from relevant clinical trials registries.

BackgroundReproducibility is a cornerstone of scientific advancement; however, many published works may lack the core components needed for study reproducibility.AimsIn this study, we evaluate the state of transparency and reproducibility in the field of psychiatry using specific indicators as proxies for these practices.MethodsAn increasing number of publications have investigated indicators of reproducibility, including research by Harwicke et al, from which we based the methodology for our observational, cross-sectional study. From a random 5-year sample of 300 publications in PubMed-indexed psychiatry journals, two researchers extracted data in a duplicate, blinded fashion using a piloted Google form. The publications were examined for indicators of reproducibility and transparency, which included availability of: materials, data, protocol, analysis script, open-access, conflict of interest, funding and online preregistration.ResultsThis study ultimately evaluated 296 randomly-selected publications with a 3.20 median impact factor. Only 107 were available online. Most primary authors originated from USA, UK and the Netherlands. The top three publication types were cohort studies, surveys and clinical trials. Regarding indicators of reproducibility, 17 publications gave access to necessary materials, four provided in-depth protocol and one contained raw data required to reproduce the outcomes. One publication offered its analysis script on request; four provided a protocol availability statement. Only 107 publications were publicly available: 13 were registered in online repositories and four, ten and eight publications included their hypothesis, methods and analysis, respectively. Conflict of interest was addressed by 177 and reported by 31 publications. Of 185 publications with a funding statement, 153 publications were funded and 32 were unfunded.ConclusionsCurrently, Psychiatry research has significant potential to improve adherence to reproducibility and transparency practices. Thus, this study presents a reference point for the state of reproducibility and transparency in Psychiatry literature. Future assessments are recommended to evaluate and encourage progress.

BackgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses that do not include unpublished data in their analyses may be prone to publication bias, which in some cases has been shown to have deleterious consequences on determining the efficacy of interventions.MethodsWe retrieved systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the past 8 years (January 1, 2007–December 31, 2015) from the top 20 journals in the Pregnancy and Childbirth literature, as rated by Google Scholar’s h5-index. A meta-epidemiologic analysis was performed to determine the frequency with which authors searched clinical trials registries for unpublished data.ResultsA PubMed search retrieved 372 citations, 297 of which were deemed to be either a systematic review or a meta-analysis and were included for analysis. Twelve (4 %) of these searched at least one WHO-approved clinical trials registry or clinicaltrials.gov.ConclusionSystematic reviews and meta-analyses published in pregnancy and childbirth journals do not routinely report searches of clinical trials registries. Including these registries in systematic reviews may be a promising avenue to limit publication bias if registry searches locate unpublished trial data that could be used in the systematic review.

Objective: Reproducibility is a cornerstone of scientific advancement; however, many published works may lack the core components needed for study reproducibility. In this study, we evaluate the state of transparency and reproducibility in the field of Psychiatry.Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study design was used. From a random sample of 300 publications in PubMed-indexed psychiatry journals, two researchers extracted data in a duplicate and blinded fashion using a piloted Google Form. For this study, we included publications from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018. The publications were evaluated for indicators of reproducibility and transparency, which included the availability of materials, data, protocol, analysis script, preregistration, open access, financial conflicts of interest, funding sources, and pre-registration in an online repository. Results: Our study identified 158 journals meeting the inclusion criteria and 90,281 publications from within the timeframe. Of the 300 randomly sampled, 4 were inaccessible, resulting in a final sample of 296 publications. Of the 296, only 107 (36%) were publically available online. Regarding reproducibility, 17 publications gave access to necessary materials, 4 provided an in-depth protocol, and 1 contained the raw data required to reproduce the outcomes.Conclusions: Currently, researchers in the field of Psychiatry do not adhere to practices that promote reproducibility and transparency. Change is therefore needed. This study presents a reference point for the state of reproducibility and transparency in psychiatry literature, and future assessments are recommended to evaluate progress.