Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Repeat: a framework to assess empirical reproducibility in biomedical research

Authors: Leslie D. McIntosh, Anthony Juehne, Cynthia R. H. Vitale, Xiaoyan Liu, Rosalia Alcoser, J. Christian Lukas, Bradley Evanoff

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The reproducibility of research is essential to rigorous science, yet significant concerns of the reliability and verifiability of biomedical research have been recently highlighted. Ongoing efforts across several domains of science and policy are working to clarify the fundamental characteristics of reproducibility and to enhance the transparency and accessibility of research.

Methods

The aim of the proceeding work is to develop an assessment tool operationalizing key concepts of research transparency in the biomedical domain, specifically for secondary biomedical data research using electronic health record data. The tool (RepeAT) was developed through a multi-phase process that involved coding and extracting recommendations and practices for improving reproducibility from publications and reports across the biomedical and statistical sciences, field testing the instrument, and refining variables.

Results

RepeAT includes 119 unique variables grouped into five categories (research design and aim, database and data collection methods, data mining and data cleaning, data analysis, data sharing and documentation). Preliminary results in manually processing 40 scientific manuscripts indicate components of the proposed framework with strong inter-rater reliability, as well as directions for further research and refinement of RepeAT.

Conclusions

The use of RepeAT may allow the biomedical community to have a better understanding of the current practices of research transparency and accessibility among principal investigators. Common adoption of RepeAT may improve reporting of research practices and the availability of research outputs. Additionally, use of RepeAT will facilitate comparisons of research transparency and accessibility across domains and institutions.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, Austin CP, Blumenstein R, Bradley EW, et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature. 2012;490:187–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, Austin CP, Blumenstein R, Bradley EW, et al. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature. 2012;490:187–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Khoury MJ, Lam TK, Ioannidis JPA, Hartge P, Spitz MR, Buring JE, et al. Transforming epidemiology for 21st century medicine and public health. Cancer Epidemiol Prev Biomark. 2013;22:508–16.CrossRef Khoury MJ, Lam TK, Ioannidis JPA, Hartge P, Spitz MR, Buring JE, et al. Transforming epidemiology for 21st century medicine and public health. Cancer Epidemiol Prev Biomark. 2013;22:508–16.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Ioannidis JPA, Khoury MJ. Improving validation practices in “Omics” research. Science. 2011;334:1230–2.CrossRefPubMed Ioannidis JPA, Khoury MJ. Improving validation practices in “Omics” research. Science. 2011;334:1230–2.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Ryan MJ. Replication in field biology: the case of the frog-eating bat. Science. 2011;334:1229–30.CrossRefPubMed Ryan MJ. Replication in field biology: the case of the frog-eating bat. Science. 2011;334:1229–30.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Tomasello M, Call J. Methodological challenges in the study of primate cognition. Science. 2011;334:1227–8.CrossRefPubMed Tomasello M, Call J. Methodological challenges in the study of primate cognition. Science. 2011;334:1227–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Briney K. Data Management for Researchers: Organize, maintain and share your data for research success. Exeter: Pelagic Publishing Ltd; 2015. Briney K. Data Management for Researchers: Organize, maintain and share your data for research success. Exeter: Pelagic Publishing Ltd; 2015.
20.
go back to reference Rauber A, Asmi A, van Uytvanck D, Pröll S. Data citation of evolving data:Recommendations of the Working Group on Data Citation (WGDC). Result of the RDA Data Citation WG, 2015. p. 2015. Rauber A, Asmi A, van Uytvanck D, Pröll S. Data citation of evolving data:Recommendations of the Working Group on Data Citation (WGDC). Result of the RDA Data Citation WG, 2015. p. 2015.
28.
29.
go back to reference Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.CrossRef Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefPubMed Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Metadata
Title
Repeat: a framework to assess empirical reproducibility in biomedical research
Authors
Leslie D. McIntosh
Anthony Juehne
Cynthia R. H. Vitale
Xiaoyan Liu
Rosalia Alcoser
J. Christian Lukas
Bradley Evanoff
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0377-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017 Go to the issue