Cargando…
Repeat: a framework to assess empirical reproducibility in biomedical research
BACKGROUND: The reproducibility of research is essential to rigorous science, yet significant concerns of the reliability and verifiability of biomedical research have been recently highlighted. Ongoing efforts across several domains of science and policy are working to clarify the fundamental chara...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5604503/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0377-6 |
_version_ | 1783264876805750784 |
---|---|
author | McIntosh, Leslie D. Juehne, Anthony Vitale, Cynthia R. H. Liu, Xiaoyan Alcoser, Rosalia Lukas, J. Christian Evanoff, Bradley |
author_facet | McIntosh, Leslie D. Juehne, Anthony Vitale, Cynthia R. H. Liu, Xiaoyan Alcoser, Rosalia Lukas, J. Christian Evanoff, Bradley |
author_sort | McIntosh, Leslie D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The reproducibility of research is essential to rigorous science, yet significant concerns of the reliability and verifiability of biomedical research have been recently highlighted. Ongoing efforts across several domains of science and policy are working to clarify the fundamental characteristics of reproducibility and to enhance the transparency and accessibility of research. METHODS: The aim of the proceeding work is to develop an assessment tool operationalizing key concepts of research transparency in the biomedical domain, specifically for secondary biomedical data research using electronic health record data. The tool (RepeAT) was developed through a multi-phase process that involved coding and extracting recommendations and practices for improving reproducibility from publications and reports across the biomedical and statistical sciences, field testing the instrument, and refining variables. RESULTS: RepeAT includes 119 unique variables grouped into five categories (research design and aim, database and data collection methods, data mining and data cleaning, data analysis, data sharing and documentation). Preliminary results in manually processing 40 scientific manuscripts indicate components of the proposed framework with strong inter-rater reliability, as well as directions for further research and refinement of RepeAT. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RepeAT may allow the biomedical community to have a better understanding of the current practices of research transparency and accessibility among principal investigators. Common adoption of RepeAT may improve reporting of research practices and the availability of research outputs. Additionally, use of RepeAT will facilitate comparisons of research transparency and accessibility across domains and institutions. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0377-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5604503 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56045032017-09-20 Repeat: a framework to assess empirical reproducibility in biomedical research McIntosh, Leslie D. Juehne, Anthony Vitale, Cynthia R. H. Liu, Xiaoyan Alcoser, Rosalia Lukas, J. Christian Evanoff, Bradley BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: The reproducibility of research is essential to rigorous science, yet significant concerns of the reliability and verifiability of biomedical research have been recently highlighted. Ongoing efforts across several domains of science and policy are working to clarify the fundamental characteristics of reproducibility and to enhance the transparency and accessibility of research. METHODS: The aim of the proceeding work is to develop an assessment tool operationalizing key concepts of research transparency in the biomedical domain, specifically for secondary biomedical data research using electronic health record data. The tool (RepeAT) was developed through a multi-phase process that involved coding and extracting recommendations and practices for improving reproducibility from publications and reports across the biomedical and statistical sciences, field testing the instrument, and refining variables. RESULTS: RepeAT includes 119 unique variables grouped into five categories (research design and aim, database and data collection methods, data mining and data cleaning, data analysis, data sharing and documentation). Preliminary results in manually processing 40 scientific manuscripts indicate components of the proposed framework with strong inter-rater reliability, as well as directions for further research and refinement of RepeAT. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RepeAT may allow the biomedical community to have a better understanding of the current practices of research transparency and accessibility among principal investigators. Common adoption of RepeAT may improve reporting of research practices and the availability of research outputs. Additionally, use of RepeAT will facilitate comparisons of research transparency and accessibility across domains and institutions. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0377-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-09-18 /pmc/articles/PMC5604503/ /pubmed/28923006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0377-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article McIntosh, Leslie D. Juehne, Anthony Vitale, Cynthia R. H. Liu, Xiaoyan Alcoser, Rosalia Lukas, J. Christian Evanoff, Bradley Repeat: a framework to assess empirical reproducibility in biomedical research |
title | Repeat: a framework to assess empirical reproducibility in biomedical research |
title_full | Repeat: a framework to assess empirical reproducibility in biomedical research |
title_fullStr | Repeat: a framework to assess empirical reproducibility in biomedical research |
title_full_unstemmed | Repeat: a framework to assess empirical reproducibility in biomedical research |
title_short | Repeat: a framework to assess empirical reproducibility in biomedical research |
title_sort | repeat: a framework to assess empirical reproducibility in biomedical research |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5604503/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0377-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mcintoshleslied repeataframeworktoassessempiricalreproducibilityinbiomedicalresearch AT juehneanthony repeataframeworktoassessempiricalreproducibilityinbiomedicalresearch AT vitalecynthiarh repeataframeworktoassessempiricalreproducibilityinbiomedicalresearch AT liuxiaoyan repeataframeworktoassessempiricalreproducibilityinbiomedicalresearch AT alcoserrosalia repeataframeworktoassessempiricalreproducibilityinbiomedicalresearch AT lukasjchristian repeataframeworktoassessempiricalreproducibilityinbiomedicalresearch AT evanoffbradley repeataframeworktoassessempiricalreproducibilityinbiomedicalresearch |