Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41043836›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2025

Improving reproducibility of data analysis and code in medical research: 5 recommendations to get started.

Anna Maria Streiber, Sanne J W Hoepel, Elisabet Blok, Frank J A van Rooij, Julia Neitzel, Jeremy Labrecque, M Kamram Ikram, Daniel Bos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

8 authors.

Anna Maria Streiber *Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-9369-2297
Sanne J W Hoepel *Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Elisabet BlokErasmus MC University Medical Center Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Frank J A van RooijDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Julia NeitzelDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Jeremy LabrecqueDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
M Kamram IkramDepartment of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Daniel BosDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands d.bos@erasmusmc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the growing use of high-dimensional data and methodological advances in medical research, reproducibility of research is increasingly dependent on the availability of reproducible code. However, code is rarely made available and too often only partly reproducible. Here, we aim to provide practical and easily implementable recommendations for medical researchers to improve the reproducibility of their code. We reviewed current coding practices in the population-based Rotterdam Study cohort. Based on this review, we formulated the following five recommendations to improve the reproducibility of code used in data analysis: (1) make reproducibility a priority and allocate time and resources; (2) implement systematic code review by peers, as it further strengthens reproducibility. We provide a code review checklist, which serves as a practical tool to facilitate structured code review; (3) write comprehensible code that is well-structured; (4) report decisions transparently, for instance by providing the annotated workflow code for data cleaning, formatting and sample selection; and (5) focus on accessibility of code and data and share both, when possible, via an open repository to foster accessibility. Ideally, this repository should be managed by the institution and should be accessible to everyone. Based on these five recommendations, medical researchers can take actionable steps to improve the reproducibility of their research. Importantly, these recommendations are thought to provide a practical starting point for enhancing reproducibility rather than mandatory guidelines.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchData AnalysisResearch DesignHumansReproducibility of ResultsEducation, MedicalEPIDEMIOLOGYMethodsResearch DesignSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID41043836
PMCPMC12496075

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.