ArticleBMJ open2019
Do oncology researchers adhere to reproducible and transparent principles? A cross-sectional survey of published oncology literature.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Recommendations for robust and reproducible preclinical research in personalised medicine.BMC medicine · 2023Guideline
- Reproducibility of statistically significant phase III oncology trials: An In Silico meta-epidemiological analysis.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2025Article
- Article
- Framework of the Centralized Interactive Phenomics Resource (CIPHER) standard for electronic health data-based phenomics knowledgebase.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- How often do cancer researchers make their data and code available and what factors are associated with sharing?BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Translating electronic health record-based patient safety algorithms from research to clinical practice at multiple sites.BMJ health & care informatics · 2022Article
- Prospects for improved prevention and treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders:Neuroscience applied · 2022Article
- Rates and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: Protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.F1000Research · 2021Article
- Levels and Factors Associated with Resilience in Italian Healthcare Professionals during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Web-Based Survey.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Where Do Early Career Researchers Stand on Open Science Practices? A Survey Within the Max Planck Society.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2020Article
- High impact nutrition and dietetics journals' use of publication procedures to increase research transparency.Research integrity and peer review · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAs much as 50%-90% of research is estimated to be irreproducible, costing upwards of $28 billion in USA alone. Reproducible research practices are essential to improving the reproducibility and transparency of biomedical research, such as including preregistering studies, publishing a protocol, making research data and metadata publicly available, and publishing in open access journals. Here we report an investigation of key reproducible or transparent research practices in the published oncology literature.
designWe performed a cross-sectional analysis of a random sample of 300 oncology publications published from 2014 to 2018. We extracted key reproducibility and transparency characteristics in a duplicative fashion by blinded investigators using a pilot tested Google Form. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of this investigation is the frequency of key reproducible or transparent research practices followed in published biomedical and clinical oncology literature.
resultsOf the 300 publications randomly sampled, 296 were analysed for reproducibility characteristics. Of these 296 publications, 194 contained empirical data that could be analysed for reproducible and transparent research practices. Raw data were available for nine studies (4.6%). Five publications (2.6%) provided a protocol. Despite our sample including 15 clinical trials and 7 systematic reviews/meta-analyses, only 7 included a preregistration statement. Less than 25% (65/194) of publications provided an author conflict of interest statement.
conclusionWe found that key reproducibility and transparency characteristics were absent from a random sample of published oncology publications. We recommend required preregistration for all eligible trials and systematic reviews, published protocols for all manuscripts, and deposition of raw data and metadata in public repositories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.