Transparency of research practices in cardiovascular literature

Background: Several fields have described low reproducibility of scientific research and poor accessibility in research reporting practices. Although previous reports have investigated accessible reporting practices that lead to reproducible research in other fields, to date, no study has explored the extent of accessible and reproducible research practices in cardiovascular science literature. Methods: To study accessibility and reproducibility in cardiovascular research reporting, we screened 639 randomly selected articles published in 2019 in three top cardiovascular science publications: Circulation, the European Heart Journal, and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC). Of those 639 articles, 393 were empirical research articles. We screened each paper for accessible and reproducible research practices using a set of accessibility criteria including protocol, materials, data, and analysis script availability, as well as accessibility of the publication itself. We also quantified the consistency of open research practices within and across cardiovascular study types and journal formats. Results: We identified that fewer than 2% of cardiovascular research publications provide sufficient resources (materials, methods, data, and analysis scripts) to fully reproduce their studies. Of the 639 articles screened, 393 were empirical research studies for which reproducibility could be assessed using our protocol, as opposed to commentaries or reviews. After calculating an accessibility score as a measure of the extent to which an article makes its resources available, we also showed that the level of accessibility varies across study types with a score of 0.08 for case studies or case series and 0.39 for clinical trials (p = 5.500E−5) and across journals (0.19 through 0.34, p = 1.230E−2). We further showed that there are significant differences in which study types share which resources. Conclusions: Although the degree to which reproducible reporting practices are present in publications varies significantly across journals and study types, current cardiovascular science reports frequently do not provide sufficient materials, protocols, data, or analysis information to reproduce a study. In the future, having higher standards of accessibility mandated by either journals or funding bodies will help increase the reproducibility of cardiovascular research. Funding: Authors Gabriel Heckerman, Arely Campos-Melendez, and Chisomaga Ekwueme were supported by an NIH R25 grant from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (R25HL147666). Eileen Tzng was supported by an AHA Institutional Training Award fellowship (18UFEL33960207).