ArticlePloS one2021
A computational reproducibility study of PLOS ONE articles featuring longitudinal data analyses.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 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
16 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
- Ethical considerations in generative artificial intelligence for synthetic data generation in ophthalmology.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Article
- Transparency in epidemiological analyses of cohort data a case study of the Norwegian mother, father, and child cohort study (MoBa).BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- OpenSAFELY: A platform for analysing electronic health records designed for reproducible research.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Validating the knowledge bank approach for personalized prediction of survival in acute myeloid leukemia: a reproducibility study.Human genetics · 2022Article
- Correction: A computational reproducibility study of PLOS ONE articles featuring longitudinal data analyses.PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Protecting against researcher bias in secondary data analysis: challenges and potential solutions.European journal of epidemiology · 2022Article
- Improving research quality: the view from the UK Reproducibility Network institutional leads for research improvement.BMC research notes · 2021Article
- Incidence of invasive fungal infection in acute lymphoblastic and acute myelogenous leukemia in the era of antimold prophylaxis.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- The art of validating science: four centuries of peer review.Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia)Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computational reproducibility is a corner stone for sound and credible research. Especially in complex statistical analyses-such as the analysis of longitudinal data-reproducing results is far from simple, especially if no source code is available. In this work we aimed to reproduce analyses of longitudinal data of 11 articles published in PLOS ONE. Inclusion criteria were the availability of data and author consent. We investigated the types of methods and software used and whether we were able to reproduce the data analysis using open source software. Most articles provided overview tables and simple visualisations. Generalised Estimating Equations (GEEs) were the most popular statistical models among the selected articles. Only one article used open source software and only one published part of the analysis code. Replication was difficult in most cases and required reverse engineering of results or contacting the authors. For three articles we were not able to reproduce the results, for another two only parts of them. For all but two articles we had to contact the authors to be able to reproduce the results. Our main learning is that reproducing papers is difficult if no code is supplied and leads to a high burden for those conducting the reproductions. Open data policies in journals are good, but to truly boost reproducibility we suggest adding open code policies.
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.