Abstract
Introduction Previous studies about the replicability of clinical research based on the published literature have suggested that highly cited articles are often contradicted or found to have inflated effects. Nevertheless, there are no recent updates of such efforts, and this situation may have changed over time.
Methods We searched the Web of Science database for articles studying medical interventions with more than 2000 citations, published between 2004 and 2018 in high-impact medical journals. We then searched for replications of these studies in PubMed using the PICO framework. We evaluated whether replications were successful by the presence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction and by overlap of their effect sizes confidence intervals (CIs) with those of the original studies. We also analyzed evidence of effect size inflation and potential predictors or replicability.
Results We found a total of 89 eligible studies, of which 24 had valid replications. Of these, 21 (88%) had effect sizes with overlapping CIs. Of 15 highly cited studies with a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome, 13 (87%) had a significant effect in the replication as well. When both criteria were considered together, the replicability rate in our sample was 83%. When comparing effect sizes, there was little evidence of systematic inflation in these highly cited studies. Due to the small number of contradicted results, our analysis was underpowered to detect predictors of replicability.
Conclusion Although most studies did not have eligible replications, the replicability rate of highly cited clinical studies in our sample was higher than previous estimates, with little evidence of systematic effect size inflation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding: G.G.C. receives funding from CNPq. O.B.A. receives funding from FAPERJ (E-26/200.824/2021), CNPq (308624/2018-1) and the Serrapilheira Institute.
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
Data Availability
All data related to the article is available at Open Science Framework.
