IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0307145.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating the replicability of highly cited clinical research (2004–2018)

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriel Gonçalves da Costa
  • Kleber Neves
  • Olavo Amaral

Abstract

Introduction: Previous studies about the replicability of clinical research based on the published literature have suggested that highly cited articles are often contradicted or found to have inflated effects. Nevertheless, there are no recent updates of such efforts, and this situation may have changed over time. Methods: We searched the Web of Science database for articles studying medical interventions with more than 2000 citations, published between 2004 and 2018 in high-impact medical journals. We then searched for replications of these studies in PubMed using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome) framework. Replication success was evaluated by the presence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction and by overlap of the replication’s effect size confidence interval (CIs) with that of the original study. Evidence of effect size inflation and potential predictors of replicability were also analyzed. Results: A total of 89 eligible studies, of which 24 had valid replications (17 meta-analyses and 7 primary studies) were found. Of these, 21 (88%) had effect sizes with overlapping CIs. Of 15 highly cited studies with a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome, 13 (87%) had a significant effect in the replication as well. When both criteria were considered together, the replicability rate in our sample was of 20 out of 24 (83%). There was no evidence of systematic inflation in these highly cited studies, with a mean effect size ratio of 1.03 [95% CI (0.88, 1.21)] between initial and subsequent effects. Due to the small number of contradicted results, our analysis had low statistical power to detect predictors of replicability. Conclusion: Although most studies did not have eligible replications, the replicability rate of highly cited clinical studies in our sample was higher than in previous estimates, with little evidence of systematic effect size inflation. This estimate is based on a very select sample of studies and may not be generalizable to clinical research in general.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriel Gonçalves da Costa & Kleber Neves & Olavo Amaral, 2024. "Estimating the replicability of highly cited clinical research (2004–2018)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(8), pages 1-24, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0307145
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307145
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0307145
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0307145&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0307145?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alain Cohn & Ernst Fehr & Michel André Maréchal, 2019. "Selective participation may undermine replication attempts," Nature, Nature, vol. 575(7782), pages 1-2, November.
    2. Stylianos Serghiou & Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis & Kevin W Boyack & Nico Riedel & Joshua D Wallach & John P A Ioannidis, 2021. "Assessment of transparency indicators across the biomedical literature: How open is open?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-26, March.
    3. Julian P. T. Higgins & Simon G. Thompson & David J. Spiegelhalter, 2009. "A re‐evaluation of random‐effects meta‐analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(1), pages 137-159, January.
    4. Jeffrey R Spence & David J Stanley, 2016. "Prediction Interval: What to Expect When You’re Expecting … A Replication," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-22, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sofia Dias & Alex J. Sutton & Nicky J. Welton & A. E. Ades, 2013. "Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 3," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 618-640, July.
    2. Morris, Tim P & White, Ian R & Pham, Tra My & Quartagno, Matteo, 2023. "How to check a simulation study," OSF Preprints cbr72, Center for Open Science.
    3. Nelson, Jon Paul, 2020. "Fixed-effect versus random-effects meta-analysis in economics: A study of pass-through rates for alcohol beverage excise taxes," Economics Discussion Papers 2020-1, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Ibrahim Y. Tawbe, 2023. "Environmental disclosure programs and birth weight: a meta- analysis," Working Papers 2023-02, CRESE.
    5. Alberto Aiolfi & Emanuele Asti & Emanuele Rausa & Giulia Bonavina & Gianluca Bonitta & Luigi Bonavina, 2018. "Use of C-reactive protein for the early prediction of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: Systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen, 2020. "Bad bankers no more? Truth-telling and (dis)honesty in the finance industry," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 472-493.
    7. repec:osf:metaar:2bj85_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Cebiroglu, Gökhan & Hautsch, Nikolaus & Walsh, Christopher, 2019. "Revisiting the stealth trading hypothesis: Does time-varying liquidity explain the size-effect?," CFS Working Paper Series 625, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    9. Luisa C Eggenschwiler & Anne W S Rutjes & Sarah N Musy & Dietmar Ausserhofer & Natascha M Nielen & René Schwendimann & Maria Unbeck & Michael Simon, 2022. "Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-24, September.
    10. Bodnar, Olha & Bodnar, Taras, 2025. "Birge ratio method for modeling dark uncertainty in multivariate meta-analyses and inter-laboratory studies," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    11. Schmidli, Heinz & Neuenschwander, Beat & Friede, Tim, 2017. "Meta-analytic-predictive use of historical variance data for the design and analysis of clinical trials," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 100-110.
    12. Layan Sukik & Maryam Alyafei & Manale Harfouche & Laith J Abu-Raddad, 2019. "Herpes simplex virus type 1 epidemiology in Latin America and the Caribbean: Systematic review and meta-analytics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-20, April.
    13. Vladislav Morozov, 2022. "Inference on Extreme Quantiles of Unobserved Individual Heterogeneity," Papers 2210.08524, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2025.
    14. Trood, Michael D. & Spivak, Benjamin L. & Ogloff, James R.P., 2021. "A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of judicial supervision on recidivism and well-being factors of criminal offenders," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    15. Amel Adel & Dirk Berkvens & Emmanuel Abatih & Abdelkrim Soukehal & Juana Bianchini & Claude Saegerman, 2016. "Evaluation of Immunofluorescence Antibody Test Used for the Diagnosis of Canine Leishmaniasis in the Mediterranean Basin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
    16. Adam Bystrzycki & Yesul Kim & Mark Fitzgerald & Lorena Romero & Steven Clare, 2018. "Heads-Up-Displays (HUDs) and their Impact on Cognitive Load during Task Performance - A Protocol for Systematic Review," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 2(3), pages 2701-2704, February.
    17. Deirdre K. Tobias & Aruna D. Pradhan & Edward K. Duran & Chunying Li & Yiqing Song & Julie E. Buring & Nancy R. Cook & Samia Mora & JoAnn E. Manson, 2025. "Vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo and incident type 2 diabetes in an ancillary study of the randomized Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-8, December.
    18. Alícia Dorneles Dornelles & Osvaldo Artigalás & André Anjos da Silva & Dora Lucia Vallejo Ardila & Taciane Alegra & Tiago Veiga Pereira & Filippo Pinto e Vairo & Ida Vanessa Doederlein Schwartz, 2017. "Efficacy and safety of intravenous laronidase for mucopolysaccharidosis type I: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    19. Giovanni Colavizza & Lauren Cadwallader & Marcel LaFlamme & Grégory Dozot & Stéphane Lecorney & Daniel Rappo & Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, 2024. "An analysis of the effects of sharing research data, code, and preprints on citations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(10), pages 1-19, October.
    20. Fabio Vieira & Roger Leenders & Joris Mulder, 2024. "Fast meta-analytic approximations for relational event models: applications to data streams and multilevel data," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 1823-1859, October.
    21. Cinar, Ozan & Nakagawa, Shinichi & Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, 2020. "Phylogenetic multilevel meta-analysis: A simulation study on the importance of modeling the phylogeny," EcoEvoRxiv su4zv, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0307145. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.