ReviewGeneral psychiatry2020
Assessment of transparent and reproducible research practices in the psychiatry literature.
Review in General psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Reproducibility in biomedical research.Nature medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Data sharing in circadian rhythm and mental health research: current status, challenges, recommendations and future directions.BMJ mental health · 2024Article
- SAS macro programme for Bang's Blinding Index to assess and visualise the success of blinding in randomised controlled trials.General psychiatry · 2024Review
- How often do cancer researchers make their data and code available and what factors are associated with sharing?BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Open science practices for eating disorders research.The International journal of eating disorders · 2021Article
- Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines.Scientific data · 2021Article
- Perspectives on Recruitment and Representativeness in Forensic Psychiatric Research.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- The quality of research on mental health related to the COVID-19 pandemic: A note of caution after a systematic review.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2020Article
- Adherence to research data sharing practice in dentistry over the last decade: a cross-sectional study.Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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
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.
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.