No abstract

No abstract

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.

Background: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 permit 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, English language nephrology journals. We randomly sampled 300 publications published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. In a duplicated and blinded fashion, two investigators screened and extracted data from the 300 publications. Results:Our search yielded 28,835 publications, of which we randomly sampled 300 publications. Of the 300 publications, 152 (50.67%) were publicly available whereas 143 (47.67%) were restricted through paywall and 5 (1.67%) 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, 4 (2.33%) analysis scripts, 4 (2.33%) links to a protocol, and 10 (5.81%) were pre-registered. Conclusion:Our study found that reproducible and transparent research practices are infrequently employed by the nephrology research community. Greater efforts should be made by both funders and journals, two entities that have the greatest ability to influence change. In doing so, an open science culture may eventually become the norm rather than the exception. Introduction:Reproducibility is critical to diagnostic accuracy and treatment implementation. In nephrology, a substantial body of literature is devoted to establishing the reproducibility of diagnostic tests or procedures. Examples include an evaluation of the reproducibility of the Banff classification for surveillance renal allograft biopsies among pathologists across transplant centers 1 , a novel analytic technique for renal blood oxygenation level-dependent MRI 2 , and a food frequency questionnaire among patients with chronic kidney disease 3 . This form of reproducibility is important clinically, as such studies establish our confidence in tests or procedures for applications to patient care.Concurrent with clinical reproducibility, research reproducibility establishes whether use of identical study materials and methodologies in replication efforts permit researchers to arrive at similar results and conclusions. In other cases, reproducibility may mean attempts to reanalyze study data to determine whether the same results can be obtained. The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) supports the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) rigor and reproducibility initiative, which was created to foster greater reproducibility of studies funded by taxpayer dollars. The NIDDK also sponsors dkNET 4 , a porta...

No abstract