Reproducible Research Practices in the Plastic Surgery Literature

Abstract

Background: Reproducible research—defined as the ability to replicate a study with its published materials and procedures—is integral to ensuring the validity of published studies and promoting scientific advancement. The primary aim of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the reproducibility and transparency of research in the plastic surgery literature. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed. Articles published in 12 plastic surgery journals over a 5-year period were randomly selected. Reproducibility-related and transparency-related variables were blindly and independently collected by two reviewers using previously published methods. Descriptive statistics and univariate analysis were performed for outcomes of interest. Results: The initial search yielded 18,461 publications, from which 400 were randomly selected. A total of 397 publications met inclusion criteria, of which 203 were empirical studies eligible for analysis of reproducibility-related and transparency-related variables. Among the empirical studies, most did not have a data availability statement (97.0 percent; 95 percent CI, 93.7 to 98.9). Only seven (3.4 percent; 95 percent CI, 1.4 to 7.0) were linked to an accessible protocol, four (2.0 percent; 95 percent CI, 0.5 to 5.0) were preregistered, and no studies provided analysis scripts or claimed to replicate another study. Of the 202 studies evaluated for material availability, only 17 (8.4 percent; 95 percent CI, 5.0 to 13.1) had a material availability statement. Conclusions: There is an evident lack of reproducible research practices in plastic surgery literature. The majority of plastic surgery publications do not provide information and raw materials necessary to reproduce empirical studies. Increasing awareness at the individual and institutional levels can improve research quality and transparency.

Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data

“…More literature searches identified another 44 eligible reports for inclusion, giving a total of 114 eligible meta-research studies examining a combined total of 2 254 031 primary articles for the review. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 ...…”

“…Supplementary results in the supplementary information provides further information on the individual participant data retrieval process, as well as the outcomes of the data integrity checks. In total, 108 reports of 105 meta-research studies assessing a total of 2 121 580 primary articles were included in the quantitative analysis, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ...…”

A Targeted Review of Open Practices in Special Education Publications

“…Study findings should be considered within the context of multiple limitations. Similar to recent reviews examining the presence of open practices in addiction medicine (Adewumi et al, 2021), cardiology (Anderson et al, 2021), obstetrics and gynecology (Rauh et al, 2022), oncology (Walters et al, 2019), orthopedics (Fladie et al, 2021), plastic surgery (Ascha et al, 2022), psychology (Hardwicke et al, 2022), and the social sciences (Hardwicke et al, 2020), we sampled only 250 studies (from a pool of 1,427 articles). Although we randomly selected these studies, results from a larger sample may have differed.…”

Ethical Principles in Plastic Surgery Research

“…However, it is concerning that studies examining the reproducibility and transparency of research in plastic surgery, have found that the majority of publications fail to provide the information and raw materials to even make an attempt at replication of empirical studies possible. 27 Reframing quality and validity as part of the ethical imperative in research can improve transparency and collective progress as a field.…”