Up Front and Open? Shrouded in Secrecy? Or Somewhere in Between? A Meta-Research Systematic Review of Open Science Practices in Sport Medicine Research.

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Pub Date : 2023-12-01 DOI:10.2519/jospt.2023.12016
Garrett S Bullock, Patrick Ward, Franco M Impellizzeri, Stefan Kluzek, Tom Hughes, Charles Hillman, Brian R Waterman, Kerry Danelson, Kaitlin Henry, Emily Barr, Kelsey Healy, Anu M Räisänen, Christina Gomez, Garrett Fernandez, Jakob Wolf, Kristen F Nicholson, Tim Sell, Ryan Zerega, Paula Dhiman, Richard D Riley, Gary S Collins
{"title":"Up Front and Open? Shrouded in Secrecy? Or Somewhere in Between? A Meta-Research Systematic Review of Open Science Practices in Sport Medicine Research.","authors":"Garrett S Bullock, Patrick Ward, Franco M Impellizzeri, Stefan Kluzek, Tom Hughes, Charles Hillman, Brian R Waterman, Kerry Danelson, Kaitlin Henry, Emily Barr, Kelsey Healy, Anu M Räisänen, Christina Gomez, Garrett Fernandez, Jakob Wolf, Kristen F Nicholson, Tim Sell, Ryan Zerega, Paula Dhiman, Richard D Riley, Gary S Collins","doi":"10.2519/jospt.2023.12016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE:</b> To investigate open science practices in research published in the top 5 sports medicine journals from May 1, 2022, and October 1, 2022. <b>DESIGN:</b> A meta-research systematic review. <b>LITERATURE SEARCH:</b> Open science practices were searched in MEDLINE. <b>STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA:</b> We included original scientific research published in one of the identified top 5 sports medicine journals in 2022 as ranked by Clarivate: (1) <i>British Journal of Sports Medicine</i>, (2) <i>Journal of Sport and Health Science</i>, (3) <i>American Journal of Sports Medicine</i>, (4) <i>Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise</i>, and (5) <i>Sports Medicine-Open</i>. Studies were excluded if they were systematic reviews, qualitative research, gray literature, or animal or cadaver models. <b>DATA SYNTHESIS:</b> Open science practices were extracted in accordance with the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines and patient and public involvement. <b>RESULTS:</b> Two hundred forty-three studies were included. The median number of open science practices in each study was 2, out of a maximum of 12 (range: 0-8; interquartile range: 2). Two hundred thirty-four studies (96%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 94%-99%) provided an author conflict-of-interest statement and 163 (67%, 95% CI: 62%-73%) reported funding. Twenty-one studies (9%, 95% CI: 5%-12%) provided open-access data. Fifty-four studies (22%, 95% CI: 17%-27%) included a data availability statement and 3 (1%, 95% CI: 0%-3%) made code available. Seventy-six studies (32%, 95% CI: 25%-37%) had transparent materials and 30 (12%, 95% CI: 8%-16%) used a reporting guideline. Twenty-eight studies (12%, 95% CI: 8%-16%) were preregistered. Six studies (3%, 95% CI: 1%-4%) published a protocol. Four studies (2%, 95% CI: 0%-3%) reported an analysis plan a priori. Seven studies (3%, 95% CI: 1%-5%) reported patient and public involvement. <b>CONCLUSION:</b> Open science practices in the sports medicine field are extremely limited. The least followed practices were sharing code, data, and analysis plans. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(12):1-13. Epub 20 October 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12016</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50099,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"735-747"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2023.12016","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate open science practices in research published in the top 5 sports medicine journals from May 1, 2022, and October 1, 2022. DESIGN: A meta-research systematic review. LITERATURE SEARCH: Open science practices were searched in MEDLINE. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included original scientific research published in one of the identified top 5 sports medicine journals in 2022 as ranked by Clarivate: (1) British Journal of Sports Medicine, (2) Journal of Sport and Health Science, (3) American Journal of Sports Medicine, (4) Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, and (5) Sports Medicine-Open. Studies were excluded if they were systematic reviews, qualitative research, gray literature, or animal or cadaver models. DATA SYNTHESIS: Open science practices were extracted in accordance with the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines and patient and public involvement. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-three studies were included. The median number of open science practices in each study was 2, out of a maximum of 12 (range: 0-8; interquartile range: 2). Two hundred thirty-four studies (96%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 94%-99%) provided an author conflict-of-interest statement and 163 (67%, 95% CI: 62%-73%) reported funding. Twenty-one studies (9%, 95% CI: 5%-12%) provided open-access data. Fifty-four studies (22%, 95% CI: 17%-27%) included a data availability statement and 3 (1%, 95% CI: 0%-3%) made code available. Seventy-six studies (32%, 95% CI: 25%-37%) had transparent materials and 30 (12%, 95% CI: 8%-16%) used a reporting guideline. Twenty-eight studies (12%, 95% CI: 8%-16%) were preregistered. Six studies (3%, 95% CI: 1%-4%) published a protocol. Four studies (2%, 95% CI: 0%-3%) reported an analysis plan a priori. Seven studies (3%, 95% CI: 1%-5%) reported patient and public involvement. CONCLUSION: Open science practices in the sports medicine field are extremely limited. The least followed practices were sharing code, data, and analysis plans. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(12):1-13. Epub 20 October 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12016.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在前面和公开,笼罩在秘密中,还是介于两者之间?运动医学研究中开放科学实践的元研究系统综述。
目的:调查2022年5月1日至2022年10月1日在五大运动医学期刊上发表的研究中的开放科学实践。设计:元研究系统综述文献检索:在MEDLINE中检索开放科学实践。研究选择标准:我们纳入了发表在2022年被Clarivate排名前五的运动医学期刊之一上的原创科学研究((1)《英国运动医学杂志》、(2)《运动与健康科学杂志》、《美国运动医学期刊》、(4)《医学科学运动与锻炼》和(5)《运动医学公开赛》)。如果研究是系统综述、定性研究、灰色文献或动物或尸体模型,则将其排除在外。数据综合:开放科学实践是根据透明和开放促进(TOP)指南以及患者和公众参与(PPI)提取的。结果:纳入243项研究。每项研究中开放科学实践的中位数为2,最多为12(范围:0-8;IQR:2)。234项研究(96%,95%CI:94-99%)提供了作者利益冲突声明,163项研究(67%,95%CI:62-73%)报告了资助情况。21项研究(9%,95%CI:5-12%)提供了开放获取数据。54项研究(22%,95%CI:17-27%)包括数据可用性声明,3项研究(1%,95%CI:0-3%)提供代码。76项研究(32%,95%置信区间:25-37%)采用透明材料,30项研究(12%,95%置信度:8-16)采用报告指南。28项研究(12%,95%置信区间:8-16%)已预先登记。六项研究(3%,95%置信区间:1-4%)发表了一项方案。四项研究(2%,95%置信区间:0-3%)报告了先验分析计划。7项研究(3%,95%置信区间:1-5%)报告患者和公众参与。结论:运动医学领域的开放科学实践极其有限。最少遵循的做法是共享代码、数据和分析计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy® (JOSPT®) publishes scientifically rigorous, clinically relevant content for physical therapists and others in the health care community to advance musculoskeletal and sports-related practice globally. To this end, JOSPT features the latest evidence-based research and clinical cases in musculoskeletal health, injury, and rehabilitation, including physical therapy, orthopaedics, sports medicine, and biomechanics. With an impact factor of 3.090, JOSPT is among the highest ranked physical therapy journals in Clarivate Analytics''s Journal Citation Reports, Science Edition (2017). JOSPT stands eighth of 65 journals in the category of rehabilitation, twelfth of 77 journals in orthopedics, and fourteenth of 81 journals in sport sciences. JOSPT''s 5-year impact factor is 4.061.
期刊最新文献
Concussion Incidence by Type of Sport: Differences by Sex, Age Groups, Type of Session, and Level of Play An Overview of Systematic Reviews With Meta-analysis. Differential Effects of Quadriceps and Hip Muscle Exercises for Patellofemoral Pain: A Secondary Effect Modifier Analysis of a Randomized Trial. Improvements in Forward Bending Are Related to Improvements in Pain and Disability During Cognitive Functional Therapy for People With Chronic Low Back Pain. The Influence of "Labels" for Neck Pain on Recovery Expectations Following a Motor Vehicle Crash: An Online-Randomized Vignette-Based Experiment. Encouraging New Moms to Move More-Are We Missing the Mark? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Exercise Interventions on Postpartum Physical Activity Levels and Cardiorespiratory Fitness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1