ORCID Profile
0000-0003-4597-1276
Current Organisation
University of Oxford
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 18-04-2022
DOI: 10.1101/2022.04.11.22273688
Abstract: Objectives: To examine changes in completeness of reporting and frequency of sharing data, analytic code and other review materials in systematic reviews (SRs) over time and factors associated with these changes. Design: Cross-sectional meta-research study. S le: A random s le of 300 SRs with meta-analysis of aggregate data on the effects of a health, social, behavioural or educational intervention, which were indexed in PubMed, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus and Education Collection in November 2020. Analysis/Outcomes: The extent of complete reporting and frequency of sharing review materials in these reviews were compared with 110 SRs indexed in February 2014. Associations between completeness of reporting and various factors (e.g. self-reported use of reporting guidelines, journal's data sharing policies) were examined by calculating risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Several items were reported sub-optimally among 300 SRs from 2020, such as a registration record for the review (38%), a full search strategy for at least one database (71%), methods used to assess risk of bias (62%), methods used to prepare data for meta-analysis (34%), and funding source for the review (72%). Only a few items not already reported at a high frequency in 2014 were reported more frequently in 2020. There was no evidence that reviews using a reporting guideline were more completely reported than reviews not using a guideline. Reviews published in 2020 in journals that mandated either data sharing or inclusion of Data Availability Statements were more likely to share their review materials (e.g. data, code files) (18% vs 2%). Conclusion: Incomplete reporting of several recommended items for systematic reviews persists, even in reviews that claim to have followed a reporting guideline. Data sharing policies of journals potentially encourage sharing of review materials.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 10-11-2020
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 24-08-2023
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 24-01-2018
DOI: 10.1136/EBMED-2017-110829
Abstract: Many claims about the effects of treatments, though well intentioned, are wrong. Indeed, they are sometimes deliberately misleading to serve interests other than the well-being of patients and the public. People need to know how to spot unreliable treatment claims so that they can protect themselves and others from harm. The ability to assess the trustworthiness of treatment claims is often lacking. Acquiring this ability depends on being familiar with, and correctly applying, some key concepts, for ex le, that’ association is not the same as causation.’ The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Project has identified 36 such concepts and shown that people can be taught to use them in decision making. A randomised trial in Uganda, for ex le, showed that primary school children with poor reading skills could be taught to apply 12 of the IHC Key Concepts. The list of IHC Key Concepts has proven to be effective in providing a framework for developing and evaluating IHC resources to help children to think critically about treatment claims. The list also provides a framework for retrieving, coding and organising other teaching and learning materials for learners of any age. It should help teachers, researchers, clinicians, and patients to structure critical thinking about the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 22-11-2022
Abstract: To examine changes in completeness of reporting and frequency of sharing data, analytical code, and other review materials in systematic reviews over time and factors associated with these changes. Cross sectional meta-research study. Random s le of 300 systematic reviews with meta-analysis of aggregate data on the effects of a health, social, behavioural, or educational intervention. Reviews were indexed in PubMed, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus, and Education Collection in November 2020. The extent of complete reporting and the frequency of sharing review materials in the systematic reviews indexed in 2020 were compared with 110 systematic reviews indexed in February 2014. Associations between completeness of reporting and various factors (eg, self-reported use of reporting guidelines, journal policies on data sharing) were examined by calculating risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Several items were reported suboptimally among 300 systematic reviews from 2020, such as a registration record for the review (n=113 38%), a full search strategy for at least one database (n=214 71%), methods used to assess risk of bias (n=185 62%), methods used to prepare data for meta-analysis (n=101 34%), and source of funding for the review (n=215 72%). Only a few items not already reported at a high frequency in 2014 were reported more frequently in 2020. No evidence indicated that reviews using a reporting guideline were more completely reported than reviews not using a guideline. Reviews published in 2020 in journals that mandated either data sharing or inclusion of data availability statements were more likely to share their review materials (eg, data, code files) than reviews in journals without such mandates (16/87 (18%) v 4/213 (2%)). Incomplete reporting of several recommended items for systematic reviews persists, even in reviews that claim to have followed a reporting guideline. Journal policies on data sharing might encourage sharing of review materials.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 28-01-2022
DOI: 10.1101/2022.01.26.22269868
Abstract: Cross-disciplinary openness and transparency of research plays an important role in scientific progress. We evaluated open-science related policies of 19 high ranking health and medical journals before (February 2020) and during (May 2021) the COVID-19 pandemic. The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guideline and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements for disclosing conflicts of interest (COIs) were used to audit journal policies. TOP scores slightly improved during the COVID-19 pandemic, from a median of 5 (IQR: 2-12.5) out of a possible 24 points in February 2020 to 7 (IQR: 4-12) in May 2021. Most journals fulfilled all ICMJE provisions for reporting COIs before (84% n=16) and during (95% n=18) the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of practising open science, however adherence to open science standards in audited policies was low overall, which may reduce progress in health and medical research.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 15-03-2021
DOI: 10.1101/2021.03.12.21253378
Abstract: Despite evidence of selective outcome reporting across multiple disciplines, this has not yet been assessed in trials studying the effects of exercise in people with cancer. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to explore prospectively registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in exercise oncology for evidence of selective outcome reporting. Eligible trials were RCTs that 1) investigated the effects of at least partially supervised exercise interventions in people with cancer 2) were preregistered (i.e. registered before the first patient was recruited) on a clinical trials registry and 3) reported results in a peer-reviewed published manuscript. We searched the PubMed database from the year of inception to September 2020 to identify eligible exercise oncology RCTs clinical trial registries. Eligible trial registrations and linked published manuscripts were compared to identify the proportion of sufficiently preregistered outcomes reported correctly in the manuscripts, and cases of outcome omission, switching, and silently introduction of non-novel outcomes. We identified 31 eligible RCTs and 46 that were ineligible due to retrospective registration. Of the 405 total prespecified outcomes across the 31 eligible trials, only 6.2% were preregistered complete methodological detail. Only 16% (n=148/929) of outcomes reported in published results manuscripts were linked with sufficiently preregistered outcomes without outcome switching. We found 85 total cases of outcome switching. A high proportion (41%) of preregistered outcomes were omitted from the published results manuscripts, and many published outcomes (n=394 42.4%) were novel outcomes that had been silently introduced (median, min-max=10, 0-50 per trial). We found no ex les of preregistered efficacy outcomes that were measured, assessed, and analysed as planned. We found evidence suggestive of widespread selective outcome reporting and non-reporting bias (outcome switching, omitted preregistered outcomes, and silently introduced novel outcomes). The existence of such reporting discrepancies has implications for the integrity and credibility of RCTs in exercise oncology. osf.io/dtkar/ (posted: November 19, 2019)
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for David Nunan.