Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40597638›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

Transparency in epidemiological analyses of cohort data a case study of the Norwegian mother, father, and child cohort study (MoBa).

Timo Roettger, Adrian Dahl Askelund, Viktoria Birkenæs, Ludvig Daae Bjørndal, Agata Bochynska, Bernt Damian Glaser, Tamara Kalandadze, Max Korbmacher, Ivana Malovic, Julien Mayor and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Timo RoettgerUniversity of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Adrian Dahl AskelundPsychiatric Genetic Epidemiology group, Research Department, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Viktoria BirkenæsCentre for Precision Psychiatry, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, University of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Ludvig Daae BjørndalUniversity of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Agata BochynskaUniversity of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Bernt Damian GlaserPsychGen Centre for Genetic Epidemiology and Mental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Tamara KalandadzeØstfold University College, Halden, Norway.
Max KorbmacherDepartment of Neurology, Haukeland University Hospital, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Max.Korbmacher@hvl.nov.
Ivana MalovicUniversity of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Julien MayorUniversity of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Pravesh ParekhCentre for Precision Psychiatry, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, University of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Daniel S QuintanaUniversity of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Laurie J HanniganPsychiatric Genetic Epidemiology group, Research Department, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

Helse Sør-Øst RHF #2020023Helse Sør-Øst RHF #2022083HORIZON EUROPE Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions #801133Kavlifondet 2021-2025Norges Forskningsråd #324252Norges Forskningsråd #324783Norges Forskningsråd #336085Norges Forskningsråd #350026
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpidemiological research is central to our understanding of health and disease. Secondary analysis of cohort data is an important tool in epidemiological research but is vulnerable to practices that can reduce the validity and robustness of results. As such, adopting measures to increase the transparency and reproducibility of secondary data analysis is paramount to ensuring the robustness and usefulness of findings. The uptake of such practices has not yet been systematically assessed.

methodsUsing the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort study (MoBa; [23, 24]) as a case study, we assessed the prevalence of the following reproducible practices in publications between 2007-2023: preregistering secondary analyses, sharing of synthetic data, additional materials, and analysis scripts, conducting robustness checks, directly replicating previously published studies, declaring conflicts of interest and publishing publicly available versions of the paper.

resultsPreregistering secondary data analysis was only found in 0.4% of articles. No articles used synthetic data sets. Sharing practices of additional data (2.3%), additional materials (3.4%) and analysis scripts (4.2%) were rare. Several practices, including data and analysis sharing, preregistration and robustness checks became more frequent over time. Based on these assessments, we present a practical example for how researchers might improve transparency and reproducibility of their research.

conclusionsThe present assessment demonstrates that some reproducible practices are more common than others, with some practices being virtually absent. In line with a broader shift towards open science, we observed an increasing use of reproducible research practices in recent years. Nonetheless, the large amount of analytical flexibility offered by cohorts such as MoBa places additional responsibility on researchers to adopt such practices with urgency, to both ensure the robustness of their findings and earn the confidence of those using them. A particular focus in future efforts should be put on practices that help mitigating bias due to researcher degrees of freedom - namely, preregistration, transparent sharing of analysis scripts, and robustness checks. We demonstrate by example that challenges in implementing reproducible research practices in analysis of secondary cohort data-even including those associated with data sharing-can be meaningfully overcome.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesReproducibility of ResultsChildFemaleHumansMaleNorwayEpidemiological dataMoBaPreregistrationReproducibilitySecondary data analysisSynthetic data

Identifiers

PMID40597638
PMCPMC12210527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.