Transparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations

Transparency, Reproducibility, and Accessibility of Clinical and Experimental Studies in Allergy (TRACES): Study design and protocol

Background

The sphere of academia is currently confronting a "reproducibility crisis" in the fields of science and medicine, which could undermine the quality and validity of evidence used in decision-making processes. Various studies have been launched to scrutinize research transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility across multiple medical disciplines. However, these factors remain largely unexplored within the field of allergy research.

Objective

This report aims to elucidate the design and protocol of the Transparency, Reproducibility, and Accessibility of Clinical and Experimental Studies in Allergy (TRACES) study.

Methods

The TRACES study is a longitudinal, systematic, meta-research study conceived to measure the evolution of research transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility, as well as their associated influences.

Results

All research articles published in allergy journals indexed in MEDLINE will be identified, and a random sample of 500 articles (100 from each of 5 different time points) will be retrieved and scrutinized. Various indicators of transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility will be extracted from these articles, including the following: presence of conflict of interest and funding statements; availability statements for protocols, data, materials and analysis scripts; preregistration statements; and open access status. These will be compared across the various time points sampled. The study will also delve into any characteristics that may predict improved research transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility.

Conclusion

The TRACES study aims to provide valuable benchmarking data that will aid various stakeholders in the international allergy research community in enhancing research practices within the specialty.

Female authorship positions in health economic evaluations: a cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the gender of the authors who publish articles of health economic evaluations in medicine and healthcare journals.

METHOD

We evaluated a random sample of economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE during 2019. Gender of the first, last and corresponding author was determined by review of the author's first name. Data were summarized as frequency and percentage for categorical items and median and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous items. We also calculated the index of authors per paper.

RESULTS

We included 200 studies with 1365 authors (median of 6 authors per paper; IQR: 4-9). Gender identification was possible for all authors in the study sample: 802 (59%) were men and 563 (41%) were women. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 78 (39%), 68 (34%), and 80 (40%) for health economic evaluations.

DISCUSSION

Female scientists were underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in health economic evaluations. This study serves as a call to action for the scientific community to actively work towards equity and inclusion.

Cost-effectiveness of occupational therapy for older adults: a protocol for an updated systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The ageing populations in developed countries are a global concern, with increasing numbers of older adults facing physical, cognitive and psychological challenges, resulting in reduced quality of life and higher healthcare costs. Healthcare expenditure worldwide has been on the rise, especially among older adults, emphasising the importance of enabling independent living while reducing healthcare costs. Occupational therapy holds promising outcomes in promoting functional independence and enhancing the quality of life for older adults, but research on its cost-effectiveness remains limited. This systematic review aims to evaluate the recent evidence on the cost-effectiveness of occupational therapy interventions for older adults from a pragmatic perspective.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This systematic review will cover full economic evaluations, including cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses, by reviewing randomised and cluster randomised controlled trials. The participants will be aged over 65 years without disease or disability restrictions. Primary outcomes will be assessed using functional status and quality-of-life assessments. Studies published before July 2023 will be searched in PubMed, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases, with no language restrictions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this literature-based systematic review. The study's findings will update the evaluation of occupational therapy's cost-effectiveness in older adults and will be made public by publishing them in scholarly journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023453558.