RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Up front and open, shrouded in secrecy, or somewhere in between? A Meta Research Systematic Review of Open Science Practices in Sport Medicine Research
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.03.30.23287959
DO 10.1101/2023.03.30.23287959
A1 Bullock, Garrett S.
A1 Ward, Patrick
A1 Impellizzeri, Franco M.
A1 Kluzek, Stefan
A1 Hughes, Tom
A1 Hillman, Charles
A1 Waterman, Brian R.
A1 Danelson, Kerry
A1 Henry, Kaitlin
A1 Barr, Emily
A1 Healey, Kelsey
A1 Räisänen, Anu M.
A1 Gomez, Christina
A1 Fernandez, Garrett
A1 Wolf, Jakob
A1 Nicholson, Kristen F.
A1 Sell, Tim
A1 Zerega, Ryan
A1 Dhiman, Paula
A1 Riley, Richard D.
A1 Collins, Gary S
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/30/2023.03.30.23287959.abstract
AB Objective To investigate the extent and qualitatively synthesize open science practices within research published in the top five sports medicine journals from 01 May 2022 and 01 October 2022.Design Meta-research systematic reviewData Sources MEDLINEEligibility Criteria Studies were included if they were published in one of the identified top five sports medicine journals as ranked by Clarivate. Studies were excluded if they were systematic reviews, qualitative research, grey literature, or animal or cadaver models.Results 243 studies were included. The median number of open science practices met per study was 2, out of a maximum of 12 (Range: 0-8; IQR: 2). 234 studies (96%, 95% CI: 94-99) provided an author conflict of interest statement and 163 (67%, 95% CI: 62-73) reported funding. 21 studies (9%, 95% CI: 5-12) provided open access data. 54 studies (22%, 95% CI: 17-included a data availability statement and 3 (1%, 95% CI: 0-3) made code available. 76 studies (32%, 95% CI: 25-37) had transparent materials and 30 (12%, 95% CI: 8-16) included a reporting guideline. 28 studies (12%, 95% CI: 8-16) were pre-registered. 6 studies (3%, 95% CI: 1-4) published a protocol. 4 studies (2%, 95% CI: 0-3) reported the availability of an analysis plan. 7 studies (3%, 95% CI: 1-5) reported patient and public involvement.Conclusion Sports medicine open science practices are extremely limited. The least followed practices were sharing code, data, and analysis plans. Without implementing open practices, barriers concerning the ability to aggregate findings and create cumulative science will continue to exist.What is already knownOpen science practices provide a mechanism for evaluating and improving the quality and reproducibility of research in a transparent manner, thereby enhancing the benefits to patient outcomes and society at large.Understanding the current open science practices in sport medicine research can assist in identifying where and how sports medicine leadership can raise awareness, and develop strategies for improvement.What are the new findingsNo study published in the top five sports medicine journals met all open science practicesStudies often only met a small number of open science practicesOpen science practices that were least met included providing open access code, data sharing, and the availability of an analysis plan.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://osf.io/4amek/ Funding StatementThis study received no 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).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData is available at https://osf.io/4amek/ Code is available at https://osf.io/4amek/ https://osf.io/4amek/