新冠相关研究透明度：一项元研究。
Transparency of COVID-19-related research: A meta-research study.
机构信息
National Pain Centre, Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
出版信息
PLoS One. 2023 Jul 26;18(7):e0288406. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288406. eCollection 2023.
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.
背景
我们旨在评估来自开放获取的与 2019 年冠状病毒病（COVID-19）相关文章的五项透明度实践（数据可用性、代码可用性、方案注册和利益冲突（COI）以及资金披露）的遵守情况。
方法
我们从欧洲 PubMed 中央数据库中搜索并导出了 2020 年 1 月至 2022 年 6 月 9 日期间在 PubMed 索引期刊上发表的所有开放获取的 COVID-19 相关文章。我们使用经过验证和自动化的工具检测了三种论文类型的透明实践：研究文章、随机对照试验（RCT）和综述。从数据库中检索了基本的期刊和文章相关信息。我们使用 R 进行描述性分析。
结果
文章总数为 258678 篇，我们能够从数据库中检索到 186157 篇（72%）文章的全文。超过一半的论文（55.7%，n=103732）是研究文章，10.9%（n=20229）是综述文章，不到百分之一（n=1202）是 RCT。大约十分之九的文章（在所有三种论文类型中）都有披露 COI 的声明。RCT 比综述或研究文章更频繁地披露资金（83.9%，置信区间（CI）：81.7-85.8%，95%）和方案注册（53.5%，95%CI：50.7-56.3）。与 RCT 或研究文章相比，综述分享的数据（2.5%，95%CI：2.3-2.8）和代码（0.4%，95%CI：0.4-0.5）较少。2022 年发表的文章在所有五项透明度实践中表现出最高的遵守率。大多数综述（62%）和研究文章（58%）遵守两项透明度实践，而近一半的 RCT（47%）遵守三项实践。在所有五项实践中都存在期刊和出版商相关的差异，不遵守透明度实践的文章更有可能发表在影响最低的期刊上，并且不太可能被引用。
结论
虽然大多数文章都是免费提供的，并且有 COI 披露，但其他透明实践的遵守情况远非理想。所有利益相关者都需要对开放科学实践，特别是方案注册、数据和代码共享，做出更坚定的承诺。
Zotero 插件