Abstract
Background The extent of reproducibility in cardiology research remains unclear. Therefore, our main objective was to determine the quality of research published in cardiology journals using eight indicators of reproducibility.
Methods Using a cross-sectional study design, we conducted an advanced search of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) catalog for publications from 2014-2018 in journals pertaining to cardiology. Journals must have been published in the English language and must have been indexed in MEDLINE. Once the initial list of publications from all cardiology journals was obtained, we searched for full-text PDF versions using Open Access, Google Scholar, and PubMed. Studies were analyzed using a pilot-tested Google Form to evaluate the presence of information that was deemed necessary to reproduce the study in its entirety.
Results After exclusions, we included 132 studies containing empirical data. Of these studies, the majority (126/132, 95.5%) did not provide the raw data collected while conducting the study, 0/132 (0%) provided step-by-step analysis scripts, and 117/132 (88.6%) failed to provide sufficient materials needed to reproduce the study.
Conclusions The presentation of studies published in cardiology journals does not appear to facilitate reproducible research. Considerable improvements to the framework of biomedical science, specifically in the field of cardiology, are necessary. Solutions to increase the reproducibility and transparency of published works in cardiology journals is warranted, including addressing inadequate sharing of materials, raw data, and key methodological details.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
This study was funded through the 2019 Presidential Research Fellowship Mentor ? Mentee Program at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Not Applicable
Any clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
Since the Open Science Framework has generated a new infrastructure that advocates for research transparency, we have supplied our complete protocol, raw data, and other necessary materials at https://osf.io/x24n3/.
