队列数据流行病学分析的透明度:挪威母亲、父亲和儿童队列研究(MoBa)的案例研究。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Timo Roettger, Adrian Dahl Askelund, Viktoria Birkenæs, Ludvig Daae Bjørndal, Agata Bochynska, Bernt Damian Glaser, Tamara Kalandadze, Max Korbmacher, Ivana Malovic, Julien Mayor, Pravesh Parekh, Daniel S Quintana, Laurie J Hannigan
{"title":"队列数据流行病学分析的透明度:挪威母亲、父亲和儿童队列研究(MoBa)的案例研究。","authors":"Timo Roettger, Adrian Dahl Askelund, Viktoria Birkenæs, Ludvig Daae Bjørndal, Agata Bochynska, Bernt Damian Glaser, Tamara Kalandadze, Max Korbmacher, Ivana Malovic, Julien Mayor, Pravesh Parekh, Daniel S Quintana, Laurie J Hannigan","doi":"10.1186/s12874-025-02601-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Epidemiological research is central to our understanding of health and disease. Secondary analysis of cohort data is an important tool in epidemiological research but is vulnerable to practices that can reduce the validity and robustness of results. As such, adopting measures to increase the transparency and reproducibility of secondary data analysis is paramount to ensuring the robustness and usefulness of findings. The uptake of such practices has not yet been systematically assessed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort study (MoBa; [23, 24]) as a case study, we assessed the prevalence of the following reproducible practices in publications between 2007-2023: preregistering secondary analyses, sharing of synthetic data, additional materials, and analysis scripts, conducting robustness checks, directly replicating previously published studies, declaring conflicts of interest and publishing publicly available versions of the paper.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Preregistering secondary data analysis was only found in 0.4% of articles. No articles used synthetic data sets. Sharing practices of additional data (2.3%), additional materials (3.4%) and analysis scripts (4.2%) were rare. Several practices, including data and analysis sharing, preregistration and robustness checks became more frequent over time. Based on these assessments, we present a practical example for how researchers might improve transparency and reproducibility of their research.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present assessment demonstrates that some reproducible practices are more common than others, with some practices being virtually absent. In line with a broader shift towards open science, we observed an increasing use of reproducible research practices in recent years. Nonetheless, the large amount of analytical flexibility offered by cohorts such as MoBa places additional responsibility on researchers to adopt such practices with urgency, to both ensure the robustness of their findings and earn the confidence of those using them. A particular focus in future efforts should be put on practices that help mitigating bias due to researcher degrees of freedom - namely, preregistration, transparent sharing of analysis scripts, and robustness checks. We demonstrate by example that challenges in implementing reproducible research practices in analysis of secondary cohort data-even including those associated with data sharing-can be meaningfully overcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"25 1","pages":"171"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12210527/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transparency in epidemiological analyses of cohort data a case study of the Norwegian mother, father, and child cohort study (MoBa).\",\"authors\":\"Timo Roettger, Adrian Dahl Askelund, Viktoria Birkenæs, Ludvig Daae Bjørndal, Agata Bochynska, Bernt Damian Glaser, Tamara Kalandadze, Max Korbmacher, Ivana Malovic, Julien Mayor, Pravesh Parekh, Daniel S Quintana, Laurie J Hannigan\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12874-025-02601-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Epidemiological research is central to our understanding of health and disease. Secondary analysis of cohort data is an important tool in epidemiological research but is vulnerable to practices that can reduce the validity and robustness of results. As such, adopting measures to increase the transparency and reproducibility of secondary data analysis is paramount to ensuring the robustness and usefulness of findings. The uptake of such practices has not yet been systematically assessed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort study (MoBa; [23, 24]) as a case study, we assessed the prevalence of the following reproducible practices in publications between 2007-2023: preregistering secondary analyses, sharing of synthetic data, additional materials, and analysis scripts, conducting robustness checks, directly replicating previously published studies, declaring conflicts of interest and publishing publicly available versions of the paper.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Preregistering secondary data analysis was only found in 0.4% of articles. No articles used synthetic data sets. Sharing practices of additional data (2.3%), additional materials (3.4%) and analysis scripts (4.2%) were rare. Several practices, including data and analysis sharing, preregistration and robustness checks became more frequent over time. Based on these assessments, we present a practical example for how researchers might improve transparency and reproducibility of their research.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present assessment demonstrates that some reproducible practices are more common than others, with some practices being virtually absent. In line with a broader shift towards open science, we observed an increasing use of reproducible research practices in recent years. Nonetheless, the large amount of analytical flexibility offered by cohorts such as MoBa places additional responsibility on researchers to adopt such practices with urgency, to both ensure the robustness of their findings and earn the confidence of those using them. A particular focus in future efforts should be put on practices that help mitigating bias due to researcher degrees of freedom - namely, preregistration, transparent sharing of analysis scripts, and robustness checks. We demonstrate by example that challenges in implementing reproducible research practices in analysis of secondary cohort data-even including those associated with data sharing-can be meaningfully overcome.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"171\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12210527/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02601-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02601-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:流行病学研究是我们理解健康和疾病的核心。队列数据的二次分析是流行病学研究的重要工具,但容易受到可能降低结果有效性和稳健性的做法的影响。因此,采取措施提高二手数据分析的透明度和可重复性,对于确保研究结果的稳健性和实用性至关重要。还没有系统地评估采用这种做法的情况。方法:采用挪威母亲、父亲和儿童队列研究(MoBa;[23,24])作为案例研究,我们评估了2007-2023年间出版物中以下可重复实践的流行程度:预登记二次分析、共享合成数据、附加材料和分析脚本、进行稳健性检查、直接复制先前发表的研究、声明利益冲突和发布论文的公开版本。结果:预登记的二次数据分析仅在0.4%的文章中被发现。没有文章使用合成数据集。共享额外数据(2.3%)、额外材料(3.4%)和分析脚本(4.2%)的实践很少。随着时间的推移,包括数据和分析共享、预注册和健壮性检查在内的一些实践变得越来越频繁。基于这些评估,我们提出了一个研究人员如何提高其研究的透明度和可重复性的实际例子。结论:目前的评估表明,一些可重复的做法比其他做法更常见,有些做法实际上是不存在的。随着向开放科学的广泛转变,我们观察到近年来可重复性研究实践的使用越来越多。尽管如此,像MoBa这样的队列提供的大量分析灵活性给研究人员带来了额外的责任,他们必须尽快采用这些实践,以确保他们的发现的稳健性,并赢得使用它们的人的信任。未来的工作重点应该放在有助于减轻由于研究人员自由度而产生的偏见的实践上——即,预注册、分析脚本的透明共享和鲁棒性检查。我们通过实例证明,在二级队列数据分析中实施可重复研究实践的挑战——甚至包括与数据共享相关的挑战——是可以有意义地克服的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Transparency in epidemiological analyses of cohort data a case study of the Norwegian mother, father, and child cohort study (MoBa).

Background: Epidemiological research is central to our understanding of health and disease. Secondary analysis of cohort data is an important tool in epidemiological research but is vulnerable to practices that can reduce the validity and robustness of results. As such, adopting measures to increase the transparency and reproducibility of secondary data analysis is paramount to ensuring the robustness and usefulness of findings. The uptake of such practices has not yet been systematically assessed.

Methods: Using the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort study (MoBa; [23, 24]) as a case study, we assessed the prevalence of the following reproducible practices in publications between 2007-2023: preregistering secondary analyses, sharing of synthetic data, additional materials, and analysis scripts, conducting robustness checks, directly replicating previously published studies, declaring conflicts of interest and publishing publicly available versions of the paper.

Results: Preregistering secondary data analysis was only found in 0.4% of articles. No articles used synthetic data sets. Sharing practices of additional data (2.3%), additional materials (3.4%) and analysis scripts (4.2%) were rare. Several practices, including data and analysis sharing, preregistration and robustness checks became more frequent over time. Based on these assessments, we present a practical example for how researchers might improve transparency and reproducibility of their research.

Conclusions: The present assessment demonstrates that some reproducible practices are more common than others, with some practices being virtually absent. In line with a broader shift towards open science, we observed an increasing use of reproducible research practices in recent years. Nonetheless, the large amount of analytical flexibility offered by cohorts such as MoBa places additional responsibility on researchers to adopt such practices with urgency, to both ensure the robustness of their findings and earn the confidence of those using them. A particular focus in future efforts should be put on practices that help mitigating bias due to researcher degrees of freedom - namely, preregistration, transparent sharing of analysis scripts, and robustness checks. We demonstrate by example that challenges in implementing reproducible research practices in analysis of secondary cohort data-even including those associated with data sharing-can be meaningfully overcome.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信