Transparency of COVID-19-Related Research in Dental Journals

Sofi‐Mahmudi, Ahmad; Raittio, Eero

doi:10.3389/froh.2022.871033

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, a recent study of 200 articles showed that adherence to COI and funding disclosures improved from preprints to peerreviewed publications and showed higher adherence to funding disclosures than our findings indicated [28]. In addition, adherence to transparency practices was higher than in our previous study on COVID-19-related research in dental journals [21].…”

Section: Plos Onecontrasting

confidence: 91%

Transparency of COVID-19-related research: A meta-research study

Sofi‐Mahmudi¹,

Raittio²,

Uribe³

2023

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background We aimed to assess the adherence to five transparency practices (data availability, code availability, protocol registration and conflicts of interest (COI), and funding disclosures) from open access Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related articles. Methods We searched and exported all open access COVID-19-related articles from PubMed-indexed journals in the Europe PubMed Central database published from January 2020 to June 9, 2022. With a validated and automated tool, we detected transparent practices of three paper types: research articles, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and reviews. Basic journal- and article-related information were retrieved from the database. We used R for the descriptive analyses. Results The total number of articles was 258,678, of which we were able to retrieve full texts of 186,157 (72%) articles from the database Over half of the papers (55.7%, n = 103,732) were research articles, 10.9% (n = 20,229) were review articles, and less than one percent (n = 1,202) were RCTs. Approximately nine-tenths of articles (in all three paper types) had a statement to disclose COI. Funding disclosure (83.9%, confidence interval (CI): 81.7–85.8 95%) and protocol registration (53.5%, 95% CI: 50.7–56.3) were more frequent in RCTs than in reviews or research articles. Reviews shared data (2.5%, 95% CI: 2.3–2.8) and code (0.4%, 95% CI: 0.4–0.5) less frequently than RCTs or research articles. Articles published in 2022 had the highest adherence to all five transparency practices. Most of the reviews (62%) and research articles (58%) adhered to two transparency practices, whereas almost half of the RCTs (47%) adhered to three practices. There were journal- and publisher-related differences in all five practices, and articles that did not adhere to transparency practices were more likely published in lowest impact journals and were less likely cited. Conclusion While most articles were freely available and had a COI disclosure, adherence to other transparent practices was far from acceptable. A much stronger commitment to open science practices, particularly to protocol registration, data and code sharing, is needed from all stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Plos Onecontrasting

confidence: 91%

Transparency of COVID-19-related research: A meta-research study

Sofi‐Mahmudi¹,

Raittio²,

Uribe³

2023

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, compared with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related dental research analyzed using the same methods [22], our findings showed higher adherence to all transparency practices. For instance, much higher adherence to COI disclosure was observed in all dental research (86%-95%, Supplementary Material at osf.io/4eq8u) than in COVID-19-related dental research (74%) during the period 2020-2021 [22]. A comparison with almost three million biomedical research articles analyzed using the same automated tools as the present study showed that COI disclosures were included more often in dental research articles than in biomedical articles in 2020 [4].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…Thus, there were deficiencies in some of the five aspects of transparency in almost all articles. However, compared with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19)‐related dental research analyzed using the same methods [ 22 ], our findings showed higher adherence to all transparency practices. For instance, much higher adherence to COI disclosure was observed in all dental research (86%–95%, Supplementary Material at osf.io/4eq8u) than in COVID‐19‐related dental research (74%) during the period 2020–2021 [ 22 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Research transparency in dental research: A programmatic analysis

Raittio

Sofi‐Mahmudi

Uribe

2022

European J Oral Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assessed adherence to five transparency practices-data sharing, code sharing, conflict of interest disclosure, funding disclosure, and protocol registration-in articles in dental journals. We searched and exported the full text of all research articles from PubMed-indexed dental journals available in the Europe PubMed Central database until the end of 2021. We programmatically assessed their adherence to the five transparency practices using a validated and automated tool. Journal-and articlerelated information was retrieved from ScimagoJR and Journal Citation Reports. Of all 329,784 articles published in PubMed-indexed dental journals, 10,659 (3.2%) were available to download. Of those, 77% included a conflict of interest disclosure, and 62% included a funding disclosure. Seven percent of the articles had a registered protocol. Data sharing (2.0%) and code sharing (0.1%) were rarer. Sixteen percent of articles did not adhere to any of the five transparency practices, 29% adhered to one, 48% adhered to two, 7.0% adhered to three, 0.3% adhered to four, and no article adhered to all five practices. Adherence to transparency practices increased over time; however, data and code sharing especially remained rare. Coordinated efforts involving all stakeholders are needed to change current transparency practices in dental research.

show abstract

“…Only one study, representing 0.15%, shared raw data, and none provided access to their code. Articles published in journals with higher impact factors, as well as those published in 2020, demonstrated a greater tendency towards transparency compared to those in 2021 [ 15 ]. Another transparency assessment was performed in orthopedic literature [ 16 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of transparency indicators in space medicine

Bellomo,

Zavalis,

Ioannidis

2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Space medicine is a vital discipline with often time-intensive and costly projects and constrained opportunities for studying various elements such as space missions, astronauts, and simulated environments. Moreover, private interests gain increasing influence in this discipline. In scientific disciplines with these features, transparent and rigorous methods are essential. Here, we undertook an evaluation of transparency indicators in publications within the field of space medicine. A meta-epidemiological assessment of PubMed Central Open Access (PMC OA) eligible articles within the field of space medicine was performed for prevalence of code sharing, data sharing, pre-registration, conflicts of interest, and funding. Text mining was performed with the rtransparent text mining algorithms with manual validation of 200 random articles to obtain corrected estimates. Across 1215 included articles, 39 (3%) shared code, 258 (21%) shared data, 10 (1%) were registered, 110 (90%) contained a conflict-of-interest statement, and 1141 (93%) included a funding statement. After manual validation, the corrected estimates for code sharing, data sharing, and registration were 5%, 27%, and 1%, respectively. Data sharing was 32% when limited to original articles and highest in space/parabolic flights (46%). Overall, across space medicine we observed modest rates of data sharing, rare sharing of code and almost non-existent protocol registration. Enhancing transparency in space medicine research is imperative for safeguarding its scientific rigor and reproducibility.

show abstract

Transparency of COVID-19-Related Research in Dental Journals

Cited by 8 publications

References 33 publications

Transparency of COVID-19-related research: A meta-research study

Transparency of COVID-19-related research: A meta-research study

Research transparency in dental research: A programmatic analysis

Assessment of transparency indicators in space medicine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About