TY - JOUR T1 - An Assessment of Transparency and Reproducibility-related Research Practices in Otolaryngology JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/19002238 SP - 19002238 AU - Austin L. Johnson AU - Trevor Torgerson AU - Mason Skinner AU - Tom Hamilton AU - Daniel Tritz AU - Matt Vassar Y1 - 2019/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/07/15/19002238.abstract N2 - Introduction Clinical research serves as the foundation for evidence-based patient care, and reproducibility of results is consequently critical. We sought to assess the transparency and reproducibility of research studies in otolaryngology by evaluating a random sample of publications in otolaryngology journals between 2014 and 2018.Methods We used the National Library of Medicine catalog to identify otolaryngology journals that met the inclusion criteria (available in the English language and indexed in MEDLINE). From these journals, we extracted a random sample of 300 publications using a PubMed search for records published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. Specific indicators of reproducible and transparent research practices were evaluated in a blinded, independent, and duplicate manner using a pilot-tested Google form.Results Our initial search returned 26,498 records, from which 300 were randomly selected for analysis. Of these 300 records, 286 met inclusion criteria and 14 did not. Among the empirical studies, 2% (95% CI, 0.4%-3.5%) of publications indicated that raw data were available, 0.6% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.6%) reported an analysis script, 5.3% (95% CI, 2.7%-7.8%) were linked to an accessible research protocol, and 3.9% (95% CI, 1.7%-6.1%) were preregistered. None of the publications had a clear statement claiming to replicate, or to be a replication of, another study.Conclusions Inadequate reproducibility practices exist in otolaryngology. Nearly all studies in our analysis lacked a data or material availability statement, did not link to an accessible protocol, and were not preregistered. Most studies were not available as open access. Taking steps to improve reproducibility would likely also improve patient care.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded through the 2019 Presidential Research Fellowship Mentor?Mentee Program at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences. We declare no conflicts of interest.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.Not ApplicableAny clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.Not ApplicableAll protocols, materials, and raw data are available online. https://osf.io/x24n3/ ER -