Background

The objective of this study was to evaluate the nature and extent of reproducible and transparent research practices in neurology publications.

Methods

The NLM catalog was used to identify MEDLINE-indexed neurology journals. A PubMed search of these journals was conducted to retrieve publications over a 5-year period from 2014 to 2018. A random sample of publications was extracted. Two authors conducted data extraction in a blinded, duplicate fashion using a pilot-tested Google form. This form prompted data extractors to determine whether publications provided access to items such as study materials, raw data, analysis scripts, and protocols. In addition, we determined if the publication was included in a replication study or systematic review, was preregistered, had a conflict of interest declaration, specified funding sources, and was open access.

Results

Our search identified 223,932 publications meeting the inclusion criteria, from which 400 were randomly sampled. Only 389 articles were accessible, yielding 271 publications with empirical data for analysis. Our results indicate that 9.4% provided access to materials, 9.2% provided access to raw data, 0.7% provided access to the analysis scripts, 0.7% linked the protocol, and 3.7% were preregistered. A third of sampled publications lacked funding or conflict of interest statements. No publications from our sample were included in replication studies, but a fifth were cited in a systematic review or meta-analysis.

Conclusions

Currently, published neurology research does not consistently provide information needed for reproducibility. The implications of poor research reporting can both affect patient care and increase research waste. Collaborative intervention by authors, peer reviewers, journals, and funding sources is needed to mitigate this problem.

中文翻译：

---

已发表的神经学研究中可重复且透明的研究实践

背景

本研究的目的是评估神经病学出版物中可重复和透明的研究实践的性质和程度。

方法

NLM 目录用于识别 MEDLINE 索引的神经病学期刊。对这些期刊进行了 PubMed 搜索，以检索 2014 年至 2018 年 5 年期间的出版物。随机抽取出版物样本。两位作者使用经过试点测试的 Google 表单以盲法、重复的方式进行数据提取。此表格提示数据提取者确定出版物是否提供对研究材料、原始数据、分析脚本和协议等项目的访问。此外，我们确定该出版物是否包含在复制研究或系统评价中、是否已预先注册、是否有利益冲突声明、指定的资金来源以及是否开放获取。

结果

我们的搜索确定了 223,932 篇符合纳入标准的出版物，其中 400 篇被随机抽样。只有 389 篇文章可供访问，产生了 271 篇带有经验数据的出版物进行分析。我们的结果表明，9.4% 提供对材料的访问，9.2% 提供对原始数据的访问，0.7% 提供对分析脚本的访问，0.7% 链接协议，3.7% 已预先注册。三分之一的抽样出版物缺乏资金或利益冲突声明。我们样本中的出版物没有被包括在复制研究中，但有五分之一在系统评价或荟萃分析中被引用。

结论

目前，已发表的神经病学研究并未始终如一地提供可重复性所需的信息。糟糕的研究报告会影响患者护理并增加研究浪费。需要作者、同行评审员、期刊和资金来源的协作干预来缓解这个问题。