PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Bullock, Garrett S.
AU  - Ward, Patrick
AU  - Impellizzeri, Franco M.
AU  - Kluzek, Stefan
AU  - Hughes, Tom
AU  - Hillman, Charles
AU  - Waterman, Brian R.
AU  - Danelson, Kerry
AU  - Henry, Kaitlin
AU  - Barr, Emily
AU  - Healey, Kelsey
AU  - Räisänen, Anu M.
AU  - Gomez, Christina
AU  - Fernandez, Garrett
AU  - Wolf, Jakob
AU  - Nicholson, Kristen F.
AU  - Sell, Tim
AU  - Zerega, Ryan
AU  - Dhiman, Paula
AU  - Riley, Richard D.
AU  - Collins, Gary S
TI  - Up front and open, shrouded in secrecy, or somewhere in between? A Meta Research Systematic Review of Open Science Practices in Sport Medicine Research
AID  - 10.1101/2023.03.30.23287959
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.03.30.23287959
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/30/2023.03.30.23287959.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/30/2023.03.30.23287959.full
AB  - Objective To investigate the extent and qualitatively synthesize open science practices within research published in the top five sports medicine journals from 01 May 2022 and 01 October 2022.Design Meta-research systematic reviewData Sources MEDLINEEligibility Criteria Studies were included if they were published in one of the identified top five sports medicine journals as ranked by Clarivate. Studies were excluded if they were systematic reviews, qualitative research, grey literature, or animal or cadaver models.Results 243 studies were included. The median number of open science practices met per study was 2, out of a maximum of 12 (Range: 0-8; IQR: 2). 234 studies (96%, 95% CI: 94-99) provided an author conflict of interest statement and 163 (67%, 95% CI: 62-73) reported funding. 21 studies (9%, 95% CI: 5-12) provided open access data. 54 studies (22%, 95% CI: 17-included a data availability statement and 3 (1%, 95% CI: 0-3) made code available. 76 studies (32%, 95% CI: 25-37) had transparent materials and 30 (12%, 95% CI: 8-16) included a reporting guideline. 28 studies (12%, 95% CI: 8-16) were pre-registered. 6 studies (3%, 95% CI: 1-4) published a protocol. 4 studies (2%, 95% CI: 0-3) reported the availability of an analysis plan. 7 studies (3%, 95% CI: 1-5) reported patient and public involvement.Conclusion Sports medicine open science practices are extremely limited. The least followed practices were sharing code, data, and analysis plans. Without implementing open practices, barriers concerning the ability to aggregate findings and create cumulative science will continue to exist.What is already knownOpen science practices provide a mechanism for evaluating and improving the quality and reproducibility of research in a transparent manner, thereby enhancing the benefits to patient outcomes and society at large.Understanding the current open science practices in sport medicine research can assist in identifying where and how sports medicine leadership can raise awareness, and develop strategies for improvement.What are the new findingsNo study published in the top five sports medicine journals met all open science practicesStudies often only met a small number of open science practicesOpen science practices that were least met included providing open access code, data sharing, and the availability of an analysis plan.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://osf.io/4amek/ Funding StatementThis study received no funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData is available at https://osf.io/4amek/ Code is available at https://osf.io/4amek/ https://osf.io/4amek/