Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey

Abstract

Objective To describe surgical journals’ position statements on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe key features of their research transparency promotion. Methods Only “SURGICAL” journals with an impact factor higher than 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were included, if there were explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the official instructions for authors (OIA) or if they had published randomised controlled trial (RCT) between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018. The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy included in the instructions for authors. Data-sharing policies were grouped into 3 categories, inclusion of data-sharing policy mandatory, optional, or not available. Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement policy”, a conflict of interests (COIs) disclosure requirement, and a specific reference to reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT for RCT. Results Among the 87 surgical journals identified, 82 were included in the study: 67 (82%) had explicit instructions for RCT and the remaining 15 (18%) had published at least one RCT. The median impact factor was 2.98 [IQR = 2.48–3.77], and in 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 11.5 RCT [IQR = 5–20.75]. The OIA of four journals (5%) stated that the inclusion of a data-sharing statement was mandatory, optional in 45% (n = 37), and not included in 50% (n = 41). No association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (mandatory or optional). A “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” was associated with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) allusion or affiliation and higher impact factors. Journals with specific RCT instructions in their OIA and journals referenced on the ICMJE website more frequently mandated the use of CONSORT guidelines. Conclusion Research transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Standardisation of journal requirements according to ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.

Data Sharing and Reanalyses Among Randomized Clinical Trials Published in Surgical Journals Before and After Adoption of a Data Availability and Reproducibility Policy

“…Even data on transparency and on data sharing practices or the promotion of data sharing in the surgical community are scarce. 7 , 27 , 28 …”

“…Our results are in line with a growing literature demonstrating that the ICMJE data sharing policy has not yet succeeded in making data available from RCTs. Even data on transparency and on data sharing practices or the promotion of data sharing in the surgical community are scarce …”

“…Even data on transparency and on data sharing practices or the promotion of data sharing in the surgical community are scarce. 7,27,28 Obviously, journals are not the only, nor the best, leverage to ensure data sharing. The impetus could be provided on several levels, such as via patients, 2 researchers, funders, and universities.…”

Investigation of Research Quality and Transparency in Neurosurgery Through the Utilization of Open Science Practices

“…Research transparency promotion, such as through data-sharing policies, is quite limited in surgical journals. [20][21][22] Therefore, many surgical studies, specifically concerning RCTs, have not been reproducible. 23 These results could allude to the fact that implementing open science practices in surgical research could be quite difficult due to unique challenges.…”

Quality of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in pediatric surgery: A cross‐sectional meta‐research study

“…Similarly, a systematic review of studies in pediatric surgery published in 1998 and 2013 found that only 1.8% and 1.9%, respectively, were RCTs [2]. These figures are even poorer than those for adult surgery: a review of 87 surgical journals by Lombard et al (2020) found that only 18% of surgical journals had published an RCT between 2016 and 2018 [3]. This is a long‐standing trend.…”