PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Sofi-Mahmudi, Ahmad AU - Raittio, Eero AU - Uribe, Sergio E. AU - Khademioore, Sahar AU - Zeraatkar, Dena AU - Mbuagbaw, Lawrence AU - Bouter, Lex M. AU - Robinson, Karen A. TI - Research Transparency in 59 Disciplines of Clinical Medicine: A Meta-Research Study AID - 10.1101/2024.04.08.24305416 DP - 2024 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2024.04.08.24305416 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/22/2024.04.08.24305416.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/22/2024.04.08.24305416.full AB - Background Transparency in health research is crucial as it allows for the scrutiny and replication of findings, fosters confidence in scientific outcomes, and ultimately contributes to the advancement of knowledge and the betterment of society.Aim We aimed to assess five transparency practices in scientific publications (data availability, code availability, protocol registration, conflicts of interest (COI) and funding disclosures) from open-access articles published in medical journals.Methods We searched and exported all open-access articles from Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)-indexed journals through the Europe PubMed Central database published until March 16, 2024. Basic journal- and article-related information was retrieved from the database. We then assessed five transparency practices in the articles using the rtransparent package in R.Results The analysis included 2,002,955 open-access articles from SCIE-indexed medical journals (open-access percentage=59.0%). Of these, 87.5% (95% CI: 87.4%-87.5%) disclosed COI and 80.1% (95% CI: 80.0%-80.1%) disclosed funding. Protocol registration was declared in 6.6% (95% CI: 6.6%-6.6%), data sharing in 7.6% (95% CI: 7.6%-7.6%), and code sharing in 1.4% (95% CI: 1.4%-1.4%) of the articles. More than 76.0% declared at least two transparency practices, while all five practices were declared in less than 0.02%. The data showed an increasing trend in all transparency practices since the late 2000s. Articles published in journals with higher impact factors and articles receiving more citations had increased odds of COI and funding disclosures, as well as data and code sharing. There were notable differences in transparency practices across the disciplines.Conclusion While most articles had COI and funding disclosures, adherence to other transparency practices was grossly insufficient. To increase protocol registration, data, and code sharing, much stronger incentives and mandates are needed from all stakeholders.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll the code and data associated with the study were shared through both its OSF repository (https://osf.io/zbc6p/) and GitHub (https://github.com/choxos/medical-transparency) when the manuscript was submitted. https://osf.io/zbc6p/