IMPORTANCE Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) play an important role in clinical decision-making, and discontinuation or nonpublication of these trials are causes of great concern. The extent of discontinued or unpublished RCTs about head and neck cancer remains unclear. OBJECTIVE To assess the rate of discontinuation or nonpublication of RCTs involving patients with head and neck cancer. This objective was measured by observing 3 domains: discontinuation of trial, nonpublication of trial data, and feasibility of contacting trial investigators of aforementioned trials. EVIDENCE REVIEW For this study, the sample was derived using the ClinicalTrials.gov advanced search feature on March 18, 2019, to locate completed and discontinued RCTs pertaining to head and neck cancer registered before this date. Trials were analyzed to identify reasons for trial discontinuation and publication status of each trial. If publication status or reason for trial discontinuation was not allocated through the systematic search of ClinicalTrials.gov, the corresponding author was emailed to determine publication status. FINDINGS After exclusions, 130 RCTs were included. Of these trials, 92 (70.8%) were completed and 38 (29.2%) were discontinued for various reasons. The most common reason for discontinuation of trials was committee recommendations. Of the 130 analyzed trials, 67 (51.5%) were published in a peer-reviewed journal and 63 (48.5%) were unpublished trials. Of the 92 completed trials, 55 (59.8%) were published and 37 (40.2%) remained unpublished 3 or more years after trial completion. Trials funded by other sources (private, nonprofit, or the National Institutes of Health) were more likely to reach publication than industry-funded RCTs (unadjusted odds ratio, 4.3 [95% CI, 1.3-14.0]; adjusted odds ratio, 4.1 [95% CI, 1.2-14.3]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Of RCTs in head and neck cancer, 29.2% were discontinued and 40.2% completed trials never reached publication. The findings suggest that needs exist for RCT guidance of head and neck cancer. The reporting of reasons for trial discontinuation appears to be lacking, and trial publication rates were low. This study is relevant to many physicians and researchers because it identifies potential sources of decreased research productivity and ethics.

ObjectiveIt has been estimated that much of health research may be wasted, resulting in billions of dollars in wasteful research spending worldwide each year. Given the increased use of randomized trials and their influence on medicine, one method to combat research waste is to conduct randomized clinical trials (RCTs) only when a systematic review (SR) suggests more data are needed or when no previous SRs are identified. Here, we analyzed RCTs to determine whether SRs were cited as justification for conducting a trial.MethodsWe analyzed phase III RCTs published between 2016 and 2018 in New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, and JAMA. We performed duplicate and independent data extraction to ensure the accuracy and validity of our data. For each trial, we extracted whether SRs were cited as justification for conducting the clinical trial.ResultsWe examined 637 RCTs that cited 728 SRs. Overall, 38.1% (243/637) of RCTs cited an SR as either verbatim (6.9%, 44/637) or inferred (31.2%, 199/637) for trial justification. The 79 remaining RCTs cited SRs in other ways. Approximately, 49.5% (315/637) of RCTs did not cite a SR.ConclusionsLess than half of the analyzed clinical trials cited a SRs as the basis for undertaking the trial. We believe trialists should be required to present relevant SRs to an ethics or peer review committee demonstrating an unmet need prior to initiating a trial. Eliminating research waste is both a scientific and ethical responsibility.

Background:Scientific 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. Methods:We 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. Results:Our 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. Conclusions:Components 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. Level of Evidence: N/A

Disclosures:The authors report no conflicts of interest. Word count: 2,978Author contributions: MV and DT conceived the study and designed the protocol. MV and DT supervised the study. MV received research funding. SE and IF extracted data. SE and IF conducted data analysis and organization. MA conducted the final data analysis. SE, IF, MA, DT, and MV drafted the manuscript. All authors provided critical feedback, ideas, and editing for the manuscript and have approved the final version. SE assumes responsibility for this manuscript. Abstract: Background:In recent years, urgency has been placed on the "reproducibility crisis" facing biomedical research. Despite efforts toward improvement, certain elements needed to reproduce a study are often lacking from publications. The current state of reproducibility within the sports medicine research community remains unknown.Purpose: Our study sought to evaluate the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency to determine the current state of research reporting in sports medicine research. Study Design: Cross-sectional reviewMethods: Using the National Library of Medicine catalog, we identified 41 MEDLINE-indexed, English language sports medicine journals. From the 41 journals, we randomly sampled 300 publications that were recorded on PubMed as being published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. Two investigators extracted data in duplicate and blinded fashion. Results:Of the 300 publications sampled, 280 were accessible and were screened for empirical data.Studies that lack empirical data were excluded from our analysis. Of the remaining 195 with empirical data, 10 (5.13%) publications provided data availability statements, 1 (0.51%) provided a protocol, 0 (0.0%) provided an analysis script, and 9 (4.62%) were pre registered.Conclusion: Reproducibility and transparency indicators are lacking in sports medicine publications. The majority of publications lack the necessary resources for reproducibility such as material, data, analysis scripts, or protocol availability. While the current state of reproducibility cannot be fixed overnight, we feel combined efforts of data sharing, open access, and verifying disclosure statements can help to improve overall reporting.

Introduction: Reproducibility is critical to diagnostic accuracy and treatment implementation. Concurrent with clinical reproducibility, research reproducibility establishes whether the use of identical study materials and methodologies in replication efforts permits researchers to arrive at similar results and conclusions. In this study, we address this gap by evaluating nephrology literature for common indicators of transparent and reproducible research. Methods: We searched the National Library of Medicine catalog to identify 36 MEDLINE-indexed, Englishlanguage nephrology journals. We randomly sampled 300 publications published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. Results: Our search yielded 28,835 publications, of which we randomly sampled 300 publications. Of the 300 publications, 152 (50.7%) were publicly available, whereas 143 (47.7%) were restricted through paywall and 5 (1.7%) were inaccessible. Of the remaining 295 publications, 123 were excluded because they lack empirical data necessary for reproducibility. Of the 172 publications with empirical data, 43 (25%) reported data availability statements and 4 (2.3%) analysis scripts. Of the 71 publications analyzed for preregistration and protocol availability, 0 (0.0%) provided links to a protocol and 8 (11.3%) were preregistered. Conclusion: Our study found that reproducible and transparent research practices are infrequently used by the nephrology research community. Greater efforts should be made by both funders and journals. In doing so, an open science culture may eventually become the norm rather than the exception.