Background:Scientific research is replete with poor accessibility to data, materials, and protocol, which limits the reproducibility of a study. Transparency with regard to materials, protocols, and raw data sets enhances reproducibility by providing the critical information necessary to verify, replicate, and resynthesize research findings. The extent to which transparency and reproducibility exist in the field of orthopaedics is unclear. In our study, we aimed to evaluate transparency and reproducibility-related characteristics of randomly sampled publications in orthopaedic journals. Methods:We used the National Library of Medicine catalog to identify English language and MEDLINE-indexed orthopaedic journals. From the 74 journals meeting our inclusion criteria, we randomly sampled 300 publications using a refined PubMed search that were published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. Two investigators were trained for data extraction and analysis. Both investigators were blinded and independently extracted data from the 300 studies. Results:Our initial search yielded 68,102 publications, from which we drew a random sample of 300 publications.Of these 300 publications, 286 were screened for empirical data and 14 were inaccessible. For analysis purposes, we excluded publications without empirical data. Of the 182 with empirical data, 13 studies (7.1%) included a data availability statement, 9 (4.9%) reported materials were available, none (0.0%) provided analysis scripts, 2 (1.1%) provided access to the protocol used, 5 (2.7%) were preregistered, and only 2 (1.1%) provided a statement about being a replicated study. Conclusions:Components necessary for reproducibility are lacking in orthopaedic surgery journals. The vast majority of publications did not provide data or material availability statements, protocols, or analysis scripts, and had no preregistration statements. Intervention is needed to improve reproducibility in the field of orthopaedics. The current state of reproducibility in orthopaedic surgery could be improved by combined efforts from funding agencies, authors, peer reviewers, and journals alike. Level of Evidence: N/A

Background Given the increased amount of research being funded in the eld of urology, reducing the amount of research waste is vital. Systematic reviews are an essential tool in aiding in reducing waste in research; they are a comprehensive summary of the current data on a clinical question. The aim of this study is to evaluate the use of systematic reviews as justi cation in conducting randomized clinical trials (RCT) in high impact urology journals. Methods On December 13, 2019, one of us (BJ) conducted a PubMed search for randomized controlled trials published in the top four urology journals according to their Google Scholar h5-index. Using a masked data extraction process each RCT was searched for systematic reviews. Then each review was evaluated for if it was justi cation for conducting the trial based on the context the systematic review was used. Results Of the 566 articles retrieved 281 were included. Overall 60.5% (170/281) trials cited a systematic review. We found only 47.6% (134/281) studies cited a systematic review as "verbatim" justi cation for

Disclosures:The authors report no conflicts of interest. Word count: 2,978Author contributions: MV and DT conceived the study and designed the protocol. MV and DT supervised the study. MV received research funding. SE and IF extracted data. SE and IF conducted data analysis and organization. MA conducted the final data analysis. SE, IF, MA, DT, and MV drafted the manuscript. All authors provided critical feedback, ideas, and editing for the manuscript and have approved the final version. SE assumes responsibility for this manuscript. Abstract: Background:In recent years, urgency has been placed on the "reproducibility crisis" facing biomedical research. Despite efforts toward improvement, certain elements needed to reproduce a study are often lacking from publications. The current state of reproducibility within the sports medicine research community remains unknown.Purpose: Our study sought to evaluate the presence of eight indicators of reproducibility and transparency to determine the current state of research reporting in sports medicine research. Study Design: Cross-sectional reviewMethods: Using the National Library of Medicine catalog, we identified 41 MEDLINE-indexed, English language sports medicine journals. From the 41 journals, we randomly sampled 300 publications that were recorded on PubMed as being published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. Two investigators extracted data in duplicate and blinded fashion. Results:Of the 300 publications sampled, 280 were accessible and were screened for empirical data.Studies that lack empirical data were excluded from our analysis. Of the remaining 195 with empirical data, 10 (5.13%) publications provided data availability statements, 1 (0.51%) provided a protocol, 0 (0.0%) provided an analysis script, and 9 (4.62%) were pre registered.Conclusion: Reproducibility and transparency indicators are lacking in sports medicine publications. The majority of publications lack the necessary resources for reproducibility such as material, data, analysis scripts, or protocol availability. While the current state of reproducibility cannot be fixed overnight, we feel combined efforts of data sharing, open access, and verifying disclosure statements can help to improve overall reporting.

Background: Stigma towards children with obesity can begin as early as 3 years old, leading to increased risk for poorer mental health outcomes and lower quality of life. This includes discriminatory language used by peers and adults, which may be compounded by use within the medical community and in published research.Objectives: Our primary objective was to investigate adherence to person-centred language (PCL) in childhood obesity-related medical publications.Methods: We searched PubMed for childhood obesity-related articles from 2018 through 2020, from journals frequently publishing childhood-obesity-related research. Articles were randomized and searched for a list of predetermined, stigmatizing terms.Results: Of the sample of 300 articles, only 21.7% were adherent to PCL guidelines.The most frequent labels found were 'obese' appearing in 70.33% of articles and 'overweight' in 63.7%. Labels such as 'chubby', 'large', and 'fat' were less common, but still appeared in the medical literature.Conclusions: A majority of childhood obesity-related articles did not adhere to PCL guidelines. Given the negative effects of stigma among children with obesity, it

No abstract

No abstract

Background With the increasing number of randomized control trials (RCTs) being conducted and published in plastic surgery, complete reporting of trial information is critical for readers to properly evaluate a trial’s methodology and arrive at appropriate conclusions about its merits and applicability to patients. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was introduced to address the limited guidance for reporting trial interventions. Objectives We will apply the TIDieR checklist to evaluate the completeness of intervention reporting of RCTs in plastic surgery, compare the quality of intervention reporting before and after the guideline was published and evaluate characteristics associated with TIDieR compliance. Methods A PubMed search identified one cohort published prior to the release of TIDieR and another published after its release. From the final sample, the TIDieR checklist was applied to intervention descriptions and relevant study characteristics were extracted in a duplicate, blinded manner. Results 130 trials were included for analysis. The mean TIDieR score was 6.4 out of 12. Five items were reported 90% of the time, while 4 items were reported fewer than 10% of the time. We found that TIDieR publication did not affect intervention reporting (p=.22). Conclusion Our study identified areas in which intervention reporting could be improved. The extent of TIDieR adoption by trialists appears to be limited, and greater efforts are needed to disseminate this reporting guideline if widespread uptake is to be expected. Alternately, it may be beneficial to incorporate TIDieR into the more widely recognized CONSORT statement.

No abstract