Reproducibility of clinical research in critical care: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability to reproduce experiments is a defining principle of science. Reproducibility of clinical research has received relatively little scientific attention. However, it is important as it may inform clinical practice, research agendas, and the design of future studies. METHODS: We used scoping review methods to examine reproducibility within a cohort of randomized trials examining clinical critical care research and published in the top general medical and critical care journals. To identify relevant clinical practices, we searched the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and JAMA for randomized trials published up to April 2016. To identify a comprehensive set of studies for these practices, included articles informed secondary searches within other high-impact medical and specialty journals. We included late-phase randomized controlled trials examining therapeutic clinical practices in adults admitted to general medical-surgical or specialty intensive care units (ICUs). Included articles were classified using a reproducibility framework. An original study was the first to evaluate a clinical practice. A reproduction attempt re-evaluated that practice in a new set of participants. RESULTS: Overall, 158 practices were examined in 275 included articles. A reproduction attempt was identified for 66 practices (42%, 95% CI 33-50%). Original studies reported larger effects than reproduction attempts (primary endpoint, risk difference 16.0%, 95% CI 11.6-20.5% vs. 8.4%, 95% CI 6.0-10.8%, P = 0.003). More than half of clinical practices with a reproduction attempt demonstrated effects that were inconsistent with the original study (56%, 95% CI 42-68%), among which a large number were reported to be efficacious in the original study and to lack efficacy in the reproduction attempt (34%, 95% CI 19-52%). Two practices reported to be efficacious in the original study were found to be harmful in the reproduction attempt. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of critical care practices with research published in high-profile journals were evaluated for reproducibility; less than half had reproducible effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.404 | 0.716 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.049 | 0.042 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".