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. Kenneth F Schulz & Douglas G Altman & David Moher & for the CONSORT Group, 2010. "CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-7, March.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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. Ángel Enrique & Juana Bretón-López & Guadalupe Molinari & Rosa M. Baños & Cristina Botella, 2018. "Efficacy of an adaptation of the Best Possible Self intervention implemented through positive technology: a randomized control trial," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 13(3), pages 671-689, September.
    2. Gerben ter Riet & Paula Chesley & Alan G Gross & Lara Siebeling & Patrick Muggensturm & Nadine Heller & Martin Umbehr & Daniela Vollenweider & Tsung Yu & Elie A Akl & Lizzy Brewster & Olaf M Dekkers &, 2013. "All That Glitters Isn't Gold: A Survey on Acknowledgment of Limitations in Biomedical Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-6, November.
    3. Spyridon N Papageorgiou & Georgios N Antonoglou & George K Sándor & Theodore Eliades, 2017. "Randomized clinical trials in orthodontics are rarely registered a priori and often published late or not at all," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-13, August.
    4. Eun-Hi Kong & Myoungsuk Kim & Seonho Kim, 2021. "Effects of a Web-Based Educational Program Regarding Physical Restraint Reduction in Long-Term Care Settings on Nursing Students: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-10, June.
    5. Stavros Petrou & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Helen Dakin & Louise Longworth & Mark Oppe & Robert Froud & Alastair Gray, 2015. "Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(6), pages 1-8, August.
    6. Alexander P. L. Martindale & Carrie D. Llewellyn & Richard O. Visser & Benjamin Ng & Victoria Ngai & Aditya U. Kale & Lavinia Ferrante Ruffano & Robert M. Golub & Gary S. Collins & David Moher & Melis, 2024. "Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. 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.
    8. repec:plo:pone00:0217134 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Maria Giné-Garriga & Carme Martin-Borràs & Anna Puig-Ribera & Carlos Martín-Cantera & Mercè Solà & Antonio Cuesta-Vargas & on behalf of the PPAF Group, 2013. "The Effect of a Physical Activity Program on the Total Number of Primary Care Visits in Inactive Patients: A 15-Month Randomized Controlled Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-8, June.
    10. Nahid Norouzi-Gheidari & Alejandro Hernandez & Philippe S. Archambault & Johanne Higgins & Lise Poissant & Dahlia Kairy, 2019. "Feasibility, Safety and Efficacy of a Virtual Reality Exergame System to Supplement Upper Extremity Rehabilitation Post-Stroke: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial and Proof of Principle," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-11, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Rahmat Dapari & Kalaivani Muniandy & Ahmad Zaid Fattah Azman & Suhaili Abu Bakar & Mohd Nasir Mohd Desa & Lim Chee Hwa & Sukhvinder Singh Sandhu & Nooreen Farzana Mustapha & Norazman Mohd Rosli & Mohd, 2024. "Effectiveness of the Integrated Dengue Education and Learning (iDEAL) module in improving the knowledge, attitude, practice, environmental cleanliness index, and dengue index among schoolchildren: A r," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(4), pages 1-14, April.
    13. Juliusz Huber & Katarzyna Kaczmarek & Katarzyna Leszczyńska & Przemysław Daroszewski, 2022. "Post-Stroke Treatment with Neuromuscular Functional Electrostimulation of Antagonistic Muscles and Kinesiotherapy Evaluated with Electromyography and Clinical Studies in a Two-Month Follow-Up," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-17, January.
    14. Süreyya Kılıç & Sema Dereli Yılmaz, 2023. "Virtual Reality Headset Simulating a Nature Environment to Improve Health Outcomes in Pregnant Women: A Randomized-Controlled Trial," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 32(8), pages 1104-1114, November.
    15. Denise Howel & Suzanne Moffatt & Catherine Haighton & Andrew Bryant & Frauke Becker & Melanie Steer & Sarah Lawson & Terry Aspray & Eugene M G Milne & Luke Vale & Elaine McColl & Martin White, 2019. "Does domiciliary welfare rights advice improve health-related quality of life in independent-living, socio-economically disadvantaged people aged ≥60 years? Randomised controlled trial, economic and p," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-31, January.
    16. Reynolds, J.P. & Pilling, M. & Marteau, T.M., 2018. "Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 1-12.
    17. Marlene De Fabritiis & Federica Trisolini & Gloria Bertuletti & Ionut Daniel Fagadau & Davide Ginelli & Katiuscia Pia Lalopa & Lisa Peverelli & Alessia Pirola & Gaia Sala & Marta Maisto & Fabio Madedd, 2022. "An Internet-Based Multi-Approach Intervention Targeting University Students Suffering from Psychological Problems: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-15, February.
    18. 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).
    19. Andreas C Drichoutis & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Economic Rationality under Cognitive Load," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(632), pages 2382-2409.
    20. Natalia Stanulewicz & Emily Knox & Melanie Narayanasamy & Noureen Shivji & Kamlesh Khunti & Holly Blake, 2019. "Effectiveness of Lifestyle Health Promotion Interventions for Nurses: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-36, December.
    21. Ibrahim Y. Tawbe, 2023. "Environmental disclosure programs and birth weight: a meta- analysis," Working Papers 2023-02, CRESE.

    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.