↓ Skip to main content

Reproducibility of clinical research in critical care: a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
52 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Reproducibility of clinical research in critical care: a scoping review
Published in
BMC Medicine, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12916-018-1018-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J. Niven, T. Jared McCormick, Sharon E. Straus, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn, Lianne Jeffs, Tavish R. M. Barnes, Henry T. Stelfox

Abstract

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. 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. 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. A minority of critical care practices with research published in high-profile journals were evaluated for reproducibility; less than half had reproducible effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 25 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 29 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2023.
All research outputs
#941,316
of 25,670,640 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#656
of 4,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,995
of 345,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#14
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,670,640 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.