Evaluating the reproducibility of research in obstetrics and gynecology.

OBJECTIVE: Reproducibility is a core tenet of scientific research. A reproducible study is one where the results can be recreated by using the same methodology and materials as the original researchers. Unfortunately, reproducibility is not a standard to which the majority of research is currently adherent. METHODS: Our cross-sectional survey evaluated 300 trials in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Our primary objective was to identify nine indicators of reproducibility and transparency. These indicators include availability of data, analysis scripts, pre-registration information, study protocols, funding source, conflict of interest statements and whether or not the study was available via Open Access. RESULTS: Of the 300 trials in our sample, 208 contained empirical data that could be assessed for reproducibility. None of the trials in our sample provided a link to their protocols or provided a statement on availability of materials. None were replication studies. Just 10.58% provided a statement regarding their data availability, while only 5.82% provided a statement on preregistration. 25.85% failed to report the presence or absence of conflicts of interest and 54.08% did not state the origin of their funding. CONCLUSION: In the studies we examined, research in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology is not consistently reproducible and frequently lacks conflict of interest disclosure. Consequences of this could be far-reaching and include increased research waste, widespread acceptance of misleading results and erroneous conclusions guiding clinical decision-making.

YouTube: Searching for answers about breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, affecting approximately 1 in 8 women worldwide. Additionally, it is either the most or second-most lethal cancer depending on ethnicity. Many women and concerned family members turn to the internet for information regarding the signs, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of this life-altering condition. We sought to objectively evaluate the quality of the information available on YouTube concerning breast cancer. METHODS: We searched YouTube for videos relating to breast cancer. We included videos that were less than 20 minutes in length, were in the top 200 for most views and were available in English, either subtitled or narrated. Videos were independently and blindly scored using a standardized scoring form. Possible scores ranged from negative infinity to 25.5 with one point being deducted for each misleading statement or claim. RESULTS: After exclusions, 133 videos in our sample were evaluated. Out of a possible 25.5 points, the true mean was 3.90 with a standard deviation of 1.38. There were only 30 videos (22.5%) that scored more than 7 points. 12 (9.0%) videos scored 0 points or fewer. 12 (9.0%) of the videos in our sample contained at least one misleading statement with 9 of those contained multiple misleading statements with some videos having up to 10 such statements. CONCLUSION: While YouTube is an important source of information regarding breast cancer, few videos contain a significant amount of quality information and many of the videos contain false or misleading statements. In an area where patients are often scared and searching for answers, there is a significant need for more high-quality videos to educate patients and dispel myths and pseudoscience.