Cargando…

Questionable science and reproducibility in electrical brain stimulation research

Electrical brain stimulation (EBS) is a trendy new technique used to change brain function and treat neurological, psychiatric and psychological disorders. We were curious whether the published literature, which is dominated by positive results, reflects the experience of researchers using EBS. Spec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Héroux, Martin E., Loo, Colleen K., Taylor, Janet L., Gandevia, Simon C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5405934/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28445482
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175635
_version_ 1783231868143927296
author Héroux, Martin E.
Loo, Colleen K.
Taylor, Janet L.
Gandevia, Simon C.
author_facet Héroux, Martin E.
Loo, Colleen K.
Taylor, Janet L.
Gandevia, Simon C.
author_sort Héroux, Martin E.
collection PubMed
description Electrical brain stimulation (EBS) is a trendy new technique used to change brain function and treat neurological, psychiatric and psychological disorders. We were curious whether the published literature, which is dominated by positive results, reflects the experience of researchers using EBS. Specifically, we wanted to know whether researchers are able to reproduce published EBS effects and whether they engage in, but fail to report, questionable research practices. We invited 976 researchers to complete an online survey. We also audited 100 randomly-selected published EBS papers. A total of 154 researchers completed the survey. Survey respondents had a median of 3 [1 to 6, IQR] published EBS papers (1180 total) and 2 [1 to 3] unpublished ones (380 total). With anodal and cathodal EBS, the two most widely used techniques, 45–50% of researchers reported being able to routinely reproduce published results. When asked about how study sample size was determined, 69% of respondents reported using the sample size of published studies, while 61% had used power calculations, and 32% had based their decision on pilot data. In contrast, our audit found only 6 papers where power calculations were used and a single paper in which pilot data was used. When asked about questionable research practices, survey respondents were aware of other researchers who selectively reported study outcomes (41%) and experimental conditions (36%), adjusted statistical analysis to optimise results (43%), and engaged in other shady practices (20%). Fewer respondents admitted to engaging in these practices themselves, although 25% admitted to adjusting statistical analysis to optimize results. There was strong agreement that such practices should be reported in research papers; however, our audit found only two such admissions. The present survey confirms that questionable research practices and poor reproducibility are present in EBS studies. The belief that EBS is effective needs to be replaced by a more rigorous approach so that reproducible brain stimulation methods can be devised and applied.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5405934
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54059342017-05-14 Questionable science and reproducibility in electrical brain stimulation research Héroux, Martin E. Loo, Colleen K. Taylor, Janet L. Gandevia, Simon C. PLoS One Research Article Electrical brain stimulation (EBS) is a trendy new technique used to change brain function and treat neurological, psychiatric and psychological disorders. We were curious whether the published literature, which is dominated by positive results, reflects the experience of researchers using EBS. Specifically, we wanted to know whether researchers are able to reproduce published EBS effects and whether they engage in, but fail to report, questionable research practices. We invited 976 researchers to complete an online survey. We also audited 100 randomly-selected published EBS papers. A total of 154 researchers completed the survey. Survey respondents had a median of 3 [1 to 6, IQR] published EBS papers (1180 total) and 2 [1 to 3] unpublished ones (380 total). With anodal and cathodal EBS, the two most widely used techniques, 45–50% of researchers reported being able to routinely reproduce published results. When asked about how study sample size was determined, 69% of respondents reported using the sample size of published studies, while 61% had used power calculations, and 32% had based their decision on pilot data. In contrast, our audit found only 6 papers where power calculations were used and a single paper in which pilot data was used. When asked about questionable research practices, survey respondents were aware of other researchers who selectively reported study outcomes (41%) and experimental conditions (36%), adjusted statistical analysis to optimise results (43%), and engaged in other shady practices (20%). Fewer respondents admitted to engaging in these practices themselves, although 25% admitted to adjusting statistical analysis to optimize results. There was strong agreement that such practices should be reported in research papers; however, our audit found only two such admissions. The present survey confirms that questionable research practices and poor reproducibility are present in EBS studies. The belief that EBS is effective needs to be replaced by a more rigorous approach so that reproducible brain stimulation methods can be devised and applied. Public Library of Science 2017-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5405934/ /pubmed/28445482 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175635 Text en © 2017 Héroux et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Héroux, Martin E.
Loo, Colleen K.
Taylor, Janet L.
Gandevia, Simon C.
Questionable science and reproducibility in electrical brain stimulation research
title Questionable science and reproducibility in electrical brain stimulation research
title_full Questionable science and reproducibility in electrical brain stimulation research
title_fullStr Questionable science and reproducibility in electrical brain stimulation research
title_full_unstemmed Questionable science and reproducibility in electrical brain stimulation research
title_short Questionable science and reproducibility in electrical brain stimulation research
title_sort questionable science and reproducibility in electrical brain stimulation research
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5405934/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28445482
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175635
work_keys_str_mv AT herouxmartine questionablescienceandreproducibilityinelectricalbrainstimulationresearch
AT loocolleenk questionablescienceandreproducibilityinelectricalbrainstimulationresearch
AT taylorjanetl questionablescienceandreproducibilityinelectricalbrainstimulationresearch
AT gandeviasimonc questionablescienceandreproducibilityinelectricalbrainstimulationresearch