RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Transparency in epidemiological analyses of cohort data A case study of the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child cohort study (MoBa)
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.12.05.24318481
DO 10.1101/2024.12.05.24318481
A1 Roettger, Timo
A1 Askelund, Adrian Dahl
A1 Birkenæs, Viktoria
A1 Bjørndal, Ludvig Daae
A1 Bochynska, Agata
A1 Glaser, Bernt Damian
A1 Kalandadze, Tamara
A1 Korbmacher, Max
A1 Malovic, Ivana
A1 Mayor, Julien
A1 Parekh, Pravesh
A1 Quintana, Daniel S.
A1 Hannigan, Laurie J.
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/12/06/2024.12.05.24318481.abstract
AB Background Epidemiological research is central to our understanding of health and disease. Secondary analysis of cohort data is an important tool in epidemiological research, but is vulnerable to practices that can reduce the validity and robustness of results. As such, adopting measures to increase the transparency and reproducibility of secondary data analysis is paramount to ensuring the robustness and usefulness of findings. The uptake of such practices has not yet been systematically assessed.Methods Using the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort study (MoBa; Magnus et al., 2006, 2016) as a case study, we assessed the prevalence of the following reproducible practices in publications between 2007-2023: preregistering secondary analyses, sharing of synthetic data, additional materials, and analysis scripts, conducting robustness checks, directly replicating previously published studies, declaring conflicts of interest and publishing publicly available versions of the paper.Results Preregistering secondary data analysis was only found in 0.4% of articles. No articles used synthetic data sets. Sharing practices of additional data (2.3%), additional materials (3.4%) and analysis scripts (4.2%) were rare. Several practices, including data and analysis sharing, preregistration and robustness checks became more frequent over time. Based on these assessments, we present a practical example for how researchers might improve transparency and reproducibility of their research.Conclusions The present assessment demonstrates that some reproducible practices are more common than others, with some practices being virtually absent. In line with a broader shift towards open science, we observed an increasing use of reproducible research practices in recent years. Nonetheless, the large amount of analytical flexibility offered by cohorts such as MoBa places additional responsibility on researchers to adopt such practices with urgency, to both ensure the robustness of their findings and earn the confidence of those using them. A particular focus in future efforts should be put on practices that help mitigating bias due to researcher degrees of freedom – namely, preregistration, transparent sharing of analysis scripts, and robustness checks. We demonstrate by example that challenges in implementing reproducible research practices in analysis of secondary cohort data - even including those associated with data sharing - can be meaningfully overcome.Competing Interest StatementAB, DQ, IM, JM, PP, TK and TR have engaged with meta-scientific research and have been actively involved in methodological debates about scientific practices, including transparency across disciplines. ADA, LDB, LH, and PP have published secondary analyses of the MoBa cohort. All other authors have no competing interests.Funding StatementTR was supported by the Research Council of Norway (ICONIC; #350026); PP was supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant (#801133) and by Research Council of Norway (#324252); ADA was supported by the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority (#2020023) and the European Union's Horizon Europe Research and Innovation programme (FAMILY; #101057529); BG was supported by the Research Council of Norway (#336085); DQ was supported by the Research Council of Norway (#324783) and the Kavli Trust; LH was supported by the South Eastern Regional Health Authority of Norway (#2022083, #2019097).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 dataset(s) and materials supporting the conclusions of this article are available in the OSF repository: https://osf.io/2jqxv/.