Héroux Martin E, Loo Colleen K, Taylor Janet L, Gandevia Simon C
Neuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, NSW, Australia.
School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wale, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 26;12(4):e0175635. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175635. eCollection 2017.
Electrical brain stimulation (EBS) is a trendy new technique used to change brain function and treat neurological, psychiatric and psychological disorders. We were curious whether the published literature, which is dominated by positive results, reflects the experience of researchers using EBS. Specifically, we wanted to know whether researchers are able to reproduce published EBS effects and whether they engage in, but fail to report, questionable research practices. We invited 976 researchers to complete an online survey. We also audited 100 randomly-selected published EBS papers. A total of 154 researchers completed the survey. Survey respondents had a median of 3 [1 to 6, IQR] published EBS papers (1180 total) and 2 [1 to 3] unpublished ones (380 total). With anodal and cathodal EBS, the two most widely used techniques, 45-50% of researchers reported being able to routinely reproduce published results. When asked about how study sample size was determined, 69% of respondents reported using the sample size of published studies, while 61% had used power calculations, and 32% had based their decision on pilot data. In contrast, our audit found only 6 papers where power calculations were used and a single paper in which pilot data was used. When asked about questionable research practices, survey respondents were aware of other researchers who selectively reported study outcomes (41%) and experimental conditions (36%), adjusted statistical analysis to optimise results (43%), and engaged in other shady practices (20%). Fewer respondents admitted to engaging in these practices themselves, although 25% admitted to adjusting statistical analysis to optimize results. There was strong agreement that such practices should be reported in research papers; however, our audit found only two such admissions. The present survey confirms that questionable research practices and poor reproducibility are present in EBS studies. The belief that EBS is effective needs to be replaced by a more rigorous approach so that reproducible brain stimulation methods can be devised and applied.
脑电刺激(EBS)是一种用于改变脑功能以及治疗神经、精神和心理障碍的新潮新技术。我们很好奇,以阳性结果为主的已发表文献是否反映了使用EBS的研究人员的实际经验。具体而言,我们想知道研究人员是否能够重现已发表的EBS效应,以及他们是否存在但未报告有问题的研究行为。我们邀请了976名研究人员完成一项在线调查。我们还对100篇随机挑选的已发表EBS论文进行了审核。共有154名研究人员完成了调查。参与调查者发表的EBS论文中位数为3篇[1至6篇,四分位距](共1180篇),未发表的论文中位数为2篇[1至3篇](共380篇)。对于阳极和阴极EBS这两种使用最广泛的技术,45%至50%的研究人员报告称能够常规重现已发表的结果。当被问及研究样本量是如何确定时,69%的受访者报告称采用了已发表研究的样本量,61%的受访者使用了功效计算,32%的受访者根据预实验数据做出决定。相比之下,我们的审核发现只有6篇论文使用了功效计算,仅有1篇论文使用了预实验数据。当被问及有问题的研究行为时,参与调查者知道其他研究人员存在选择性报告研究结果(41%)和实验条件(36%)、调整统计分析以优化结果(43%)以及其他不正当行为(20%)。承认自己有这些行为的受访者较少,不过25%的人承认会调整统计分析以优化结果。大家强烈认同这些行为应在研究论文中报告;然而,我们的审核仅发现两例此类报告。本次调查证实,EBS研究中存在有问题的研究行为且可重复性较差。需要用更严谨的方法取代EBS有效的观念,以便设计并应用可重复的脑刺激方法。