Search

Public engagement with reproducibility is crucial for fostering trust in science. This Community Page outlines, through the example of baking Christmas tree meringues, how scientists can effectively engage and educate the public about the importance of reproducibility in research., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: FN received funding from the French National Research Agency, the French ministry of health and the French ministry of research. He is a work package leader in the OSIRIS project (Open Science to Increase Reproducibility in Science), as are IS, VE and HR. CV and MK are also PhD student in this project. FN is also work package leader for the doctoral network MSCA-DN SHARE-CTD (HORIZON-MSCA-2022-DN-01 101120360), funded by the EU. LC has no conflict of interests to disclose., (Copyright: © 2024 Vinatier et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Clinical trial data-sharing is seen as an imperative for research integrity and is becoming increasingly encouraged or even required by funders, journals, and other stakeholders. However, early experiences with data-sharing have been disappointing because they are not always conducted properly. Health data is indeed sensitive and not always easy to share in a responsible way. We propose 10 rules for researchers wishing to share their data. These rules cover the majority of elements to be considered in order to start the commendable process of clinical trial data-sharing: Rule 1: Abide by local legal and regulatory data protection requirementsRule 2: Anticipate the possibility of clinical trial data-sharing before obtaining fundingRule 3: Declare your intent to share data in the registration stepRule 4: Involve research participantsRule 5: Determine the method of data accessRule 6: Remember there are several other elements to shareRule 7: Do not proceed aloneRule 8: Deploy optimal data management to ensure that the data shared is usefulRule 9: Minimize risksRule 10: Strive for excellence., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Pellen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals that may show favoritism in accepting articles by specific authors. We examined whether the PPMP, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using all articles in a sample of 5,468 biomedical journals indexed in the National Library of Medicine. For articles published between 2015 and 2019, the median PPMP was 2.9%, and 5% of journal exhibited a PPMP of 10.6% or more. Among the journals with the highest PPMP or Gini index values, where a few authors were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications, a random sample was manually examined, revealing that the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%). The papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. Results of analysis on a subset of articles, excluding nonresearch articles, were consistent with those of the principal analysis. In most journals, publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Florian Naudet and co-authors discuss strengthening requirements for sharing clinical trial data., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: the authors have declared that no competing interests exist. CA received postdoctoral grants from Uppsala University, the Blanceflor Foundation, and the Swedish Society of Medicine. In the past 36 months, JDW received research support through the Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and through the Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) at Yale University and the Mayo Clinic (U01FD005938).

Florian Naudet and co-authors propose a pathway involving registered criteria for evaluation and approval of new drugs., Competing Interests: We have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: ET is a former reviewer at the US Food and Drug Administration (1998-2001).

Background: Funders are key players in supporting randomized controlled trial (RCT) data-sharing. This research aimed to describe commercial and non-commercial funders' data-sharing policies and to assess the compliance of funded RCTs with the existing data-sharing policies., Methods and Findings: Funders of clinical research having funded at least one RCT in the years 2016 to 2018 were surveyed. All 78 eligible non-commercial funders retrieved from the Sherpa/Juliet Initiative website and a random sample of 100 commercial funders selected from pharmaceutical association member lists (LEEM, IFPMA, EFPIA) and the top 100 pharmaceutical companies in terms of drug sales were included. Thirty (out of 78; 38%) non-commercial funders had a data-sharing policy with eighteen (out of 30, 60%) making data-sharing mandatory and twelve (40%) encouraging data-sharing. Forty-one (out of 100; 41%) of commercial funders had a data-sharing policy. Among funders with a data-sharing policy, a survey of two random samples of 100 RCTs registered on Clinicaltrial.gov, data-sharing statements were present for seventy-seven (77%, 95% IC [67%-84%]) and eighty-one (81% [72% - 88%]) of RCTs funded by non-commercial and commercial funders respectively. Intention to share data was expressed in 12% [7%-20%] and 59% [49%- 69%] of RCTs funded by non-commercial and commercial funders respectively., Conclusions: This survey identified suboptimal performances of funders in setting up data-sharing policies. For those with a data-sharing policy, the implementation of the policy in study registration was limited for commercial funders and of concern for non-commercial funders. The limitations of the present study include its cross-sectional nature, since data-sharing policies are continuously changing. We call for a standardization of policies with a strong evaluation component to make sure that, when in place, these policies are effective., Competing Interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: FN received funding from the French National Research Agency for this project. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Assessment of researchers is necessary for decisions of hiring, promotion, and tenure. A burgeoning number of scientific leaders believe the current system of faculty incentives and rewards is misaligned with the needs of society and disconnected from the evidence about the causes of the reproducibility crisis and suboptimal quality of the scientific publication record. To address this issue, particularly for the clinical and life sciences, we convened a 22-member expert panel workshop in Washington, DC, in January 2017. Twenty-two academic leaders, funders, and scientists participated in the meeting. As background for the meeting, we completed a selective literature review of 22 key documents critiquing the current incentive system. From each document, we extracted how the authors perceived the problems of assessing science and scientists, the unintended consequences of maintaining the status quo for assessing scientists, and details of their proposed solutions. The resulting table was used as a seed for participant discussion. This resulted in six principles for assessing scientists and associated research and policy implications. We hope the content of this paper will serve as a basis for establishing best practices and redesigning the current approaches to assessing scientists by the many players involved in that process.

Background: Nalmefene is a recent option in alcohol dependence treatment. Its approval was controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the aggregated data (registered as PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014014853) to compare the harm/benefit of nalmefene versus placebo or active comparator in this indication., Methods and Findings: Three reviewers searched for published and unpublished studies in Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and bibliographies and by mailing pharmaceutical companies, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the US Food and Drug Administration. Double-blind randomized clinical trials evaluating nalmefene to treat adult alcohol dependence, irrespective of the comparator, were included if they reported (1) health outcomes (mortality, accidents/injuries, quality of life, somatic complications), (2) alcohol consumption outcomes, (3) biological outcomes, or (4) treatment safety outcomes, at 6 mo and/or 1 y. Three authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the trials identified. Relevant trials were evaluated in full text. The reviewers independently assessed the included trials for methodological quality using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. On the basis of the I2 index or the Cochrane's Q test, fixed or random effect models were used to estimate risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs. In sensitivity analyses, outcomes for participants who were lost to follow-up were included using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF); for binary measures, patients lost to follow-up were considered equal to failures (i.e., non-assessed patients were recorded as not having responded in both groups). Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus placebo, with a total of 2,567 randomized participants, were included in the main analysis. None of these studies was performed in the specific population defined by the EMA approval of nalmefene, i.e., adults with alcohol dependence who consume more than 60 g of alcohol per day (for men) or more than 40 g per day (for women). No RCT compared nalmefene with another medication. Mortality at 6 mo (RR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.08; 2.01]) and 1 y (RR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.04; 23.95]) and quality of life at 6 mo (SF-36 physical component summary score: MD = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.32; 2.01]; SF-36 mental component summary score: MD = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.33; 3.34]) were not different across groups. Other health outcomes were not reported. Differences were encountered for alcohol consumption outcomes such as monthly number of heavy drinking days at 6 mo (MD = -1.65, 95% CI [-2.41; -0.89]) and at 1 y (MD = -1.60, 95% CI [-2.85; -0.35]) and total alcohol consumption at 6 mo (SMD = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.30; -0.10]). An attrition bias could not be excluded, with more withdrawals for nalmefene than for placebo, including more withdrawals for safety reasons at both 6 mo (RR = 3.65, 95% CI [2.02; 6.63]) and 1 y (RR = 7.01, 95% CI [1.72; 28.63]). Sensitivity analyses showed no differences for alcohol consumption outcomes between nalmefene and placebo, but the weight of these results should not be overestimated, as the BOCF approach to managing withdrawals was used., Conclusions: The value of nalmefene for treatment of alcohol addiction is not established. At best, nalmefene has limited efficacy in reducing alcohol consumption.

Background: Deep brain stimulation has shed new light on the central role of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). We explored this structure from a functional perspective, synchronizing neuroimaging and cognitive measures., Methods and Findings: This case-control cross-sectional study compared 15 OCD patients without comorbidities and not currently on serotonin reuptake inhibitors or cognitive behavioural therapy with 15 healthy controls (matched for age, sex and education level) on resting-state (18)FDG-PET scans and a neuropsychological battery assessing executive functions. We looked for correlations between metabolic modifications and impaired neuropsychological scores. Modifications in glucose metabolism were found in frontal regions (orbitofrontal cortex and dorsolateral cortices), the cingulate gyrus, insula and parietal gyrus. Neuropsychological differences between patients and controls, which were subtle, were correlated with the metabolism of the prefrontal, parietal, and temporal cortices., Conclusion: As expected, we confirmed previous reports of a PFC dysfunction in OCD patients, and established a correlation with cognitive deficits. Other regions outside the prefrontal cortex, including the dorsoparietal cortex and the insula, also appeared to be implicated in the pathophysiology of OCD, providing fresh insights on the complexity of OCD syndromes.

Background: To compare response to antidepressants between randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational trials., Methods and Findings: Published and unpublished studies (from 1989 to 2009) were searched for by 2 reviewers on Medline, the Cochrane library, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, Current Controlled Trial, bibliographies and by mailing key organisations and researchers. RCTs and observational studies on fluoxetine or venlafaxine in first-line treatment for major depressive disorder reported in English, French or Spanish language were included in the main analysis. Studies including patients from a wider spectrum of depressive disorders (anxious depression, minor depressive episode, dysthymia) were added in a second analysis. The main outcome was the pre-/post-treatment difference on depression scales standardised to 100 (17-item or 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression or Montgomery and Åsberg Rating Scale) in each study arm. A meta-regression was conducted to adjust the comparison between observational studies and RCTs on treatment type, study characteristics and average patient characteristics. 12 observational studies and 109 RCTs involving 6757 and 11035 patients in 12 and 149 arms were included in the main analysis. Meta-regression showed that the standardised treatment response in RCTs is greater by a magnitude of 4.59 (2.61 to 6.56). Study characteristics were related to standardised treatment response, positively (study duration, number of follow-up assessments, outpatients versus inpatients, per protocol analysis versus intention to treat analysis) or negatively (blinded design, placebo design). At patient level, response increased with baseline severity and decreased with age. Results of the second analysis were consistent with this., Conclusions: Response to antidepressants is greater in RCTs than in observational studies. Observational studies should be considered as a necessary complement to RCTs.