Cargando…

Reproducibility of clinical research in critical care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND: The ability to reproduce experiments is a defining principle of science. Reproducibility of clinical research has received relatively little scientific attention. However, it is important as it may inform clinical practice, research agendas, and the design of future studies. METHODS: We...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Niven, Daniel J., McCormick, T. Jared, Straus, Sharon E., Hemmelgarn, Brenda R., Jeffs, Lianne, Barnes, Tavish R. M., Stelfox, Henry T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5820784/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29463308
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1018-6
_version_ 1783301427534233600
author Niven, Daniel J.
McCormick, T. Jared
Straus, Sharon E.
Hemmelgarn, Brenda R.
Jeffs, Lianne
Barnes, Tavish R. M.
Stelfox, Henry T.
author_facet Niven, Daniel J.
McCormick, T. Jared
Straus, Sharon E.
Hemmelgarn, Brenda R.
Jeffs, Lianne
Barnes, Tavish R. M.
Stelfox, Henry T.
author_sort Niven, Daniel J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The ability to reproduce experiments is a defining principle of science. Reproducibility of clinical research has received relatively little scientific attention. However, it is important as it may inform clinical practice, research agendas, and the design of future studies. METHODS: We used scoping review methods to examine reproducibility within a cohort of randomized trials examining clinical critical care research and published in the top general medical and critical care journals. To identify relevant clinical practices, we searched the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and JAMA for randomized trials published up to April 2016. To identify a comprehensive set of studies for these practices, included articles informed secondary searches within other high-impact medical and specialty journals. We included late-phase randomized controlled trials examining therapeutic clinical practices in adults admitted to general medical-surgical or specialty intensive care units (ICUs). Included articles were classified using a reproducibility framework. An original study was the first to evaluate a clinical practice. A reproduction attempt re-evaluated that practice in a new set of participants. RESULTS: Overall, 158 practices were examined in 275 included articles. A reproduction attempt was identified for 66 practices (42%, 95% CI 33–50%). Original studies reported larger effects than reproduction attempts (primary endpoint, risk difference 16.0%, 95% CI 11.6–20.5% vs. 8.4%, 95% CI 6.0–10.8%, P = 0.003). More than half of clinical practices with a reproduction attempt demonstrated effects that were inconsistent with the original study (56%, 95% CI 42–68%), among which a large number were reported to be efficacious in the original study and to lack efficacy in the reproduction attempt (34%, 95% CI 19–52%). Two practices reported to be efficacious in the original study were found to be harmful in the reproduction attempt. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of critical care practices with research published in high-profile journals were evaluated for reproducibility; less than half had reproducible effects. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1018-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5820784
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58207842018-02-26 Reproducibility of clinical research in critical care: a scoping review Niven, Daniel J. McCormick, T. Jared Straus, Sharon E. Hemmelgarn, Brenda R. Jeffs, Lianne Barnes, Tavish R. M. Stelfox, Henry T. BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: The ability to reproduce experiments is a defining principle of science. Reproducibility of clinical research has received relatively little scientific attention. However, it is important as it may inform clinical practice, research agendas, and the design of future studies. METHODS: We used scoping review methods to examine reproducibility within a cohort of randomized trials examining clinical critical care research and published in the top general medical and critical care journals. To identify relevant clinical practices, we searched the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and JAMA for randomized trials published up to April 2016. To identify a comprehensive set of studies for these practices, included articles informed secondary searches within other high-impact medical and specialty journals. We included late-phase randomized controlled trials examining therapeutic clinical practices in adults admitted to general medical-surgical or specialty intensive care units (ICUs). Included articles were classified using a reproducibility framework. An original study was the first to evaluate a clinical practice. A reproduction attempt re-evaluated that practice in a new set of participants. RESULTS: Overall, 158 practices were examined in 275 included articles. A reproduction attempt was identified for 66 practices (42%, 95% CI 33–50%). Original studies reported larger effects than reproduction attempts (primary endpoint, risk difference 16.0%, 95% CI 11.6–20.5% vs. 8.4%, 95% CI 6.0–10.8%, P = 0.003). More than half of clinical practices with a reproduction attempt demonstrated effects that were inconsistent with the original study (56%, 95% CI 42–68%), among which a large number were reported to be efficacious in the original study and to lack efficacy in the reproduction attempt (34%, 95% CI 19–52%). Two practices reported to be efficacious in the original study were found to be harmful in the reproduction attempt. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of critical care practices with research published in high-profile journals were evaluated for reproducibility; less than half had reproducible effects. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1018-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-02-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5820784/ /pubmed/29463308 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1018-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 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
Niven, Daniel J.
McCormick, T. Jared
Straus, Sharon E.
Hemmelgarn, Brenda R.
Jeffs, Lianne
Barnes, Tavish R. M.
Stelfox, Henry T.
Reproducibility of clinical research in critical care: a scoping review
title Reproducibility of clinical research in critical care: a scoping review
title_full Reproducibility of clinical research in critical care: a scoping review
title_fullStr Reproducibility of clinical research in critical care: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Reproducibility of clinical research in critical care: a scoping review
title_short Reproducibility of clinical research in critical care: a scoping review
title_sort reproducibility of clinical research in critical care: a scoping review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5820784/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29463308
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1018-6
work_keys_str_mv AT nivendanielj reproducibilityofclinicalresearchincriticalcareascopingreview
AT mccormicktjared reproducibilityofclinicalresearchincriticalcareascopingreview
AT straussharone reproducibilityofclinicalresearchincriticalcareascopingreview
AT hemmelgarnbrendar reproducibilityofclinicalresearchincriticalcareascopingreview
AT jeffslianne reproducibilityofclinicalresearchincriticalcareascopingreview
AT barnestavishrm reproducibilityofclinicalresearchincriticalcareascopingreview
AT stelfoxhenryt reproducibilityofclinicalresearchincriticalcareascopingreview