Research reproducibility solution, one paper two discussions?

This paper (1) outlines an interesting approach to the reproducibility crisis in anaesthetic research. Reviewers only look at the methods and results sections and are then asked to write their own discussion. They are blinded to the conclusions of the paper. The discussions, which often come to markedly different conclusions, are then published together…

  1. Avidan, M. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Mashour, G. A. (2019). Independent discussion sections for improving inferential reproducibility in published research. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 122(4), 413–420.
  2. Sieber, F., Neufeld, K. J., Gottschalk, A., Bigelow, G. E., Oh, E. S., Rosenberg, P. B., … Wang, N.-Y. (2019). Depth of sedation as an interventional target to reduce postoperative delirium: mortality and functional outcomes of the Strategy to Reduce the Incidence of Postoperative Delirium in Elderly Patients randomised clinical trial. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 122(4), 480–489.
  3. Sneyd, J. R. (2019). [Review of Who watches the watchmen and the problem of recursive flea bites]. British journal of anaesthesia, 122(4), 407–408.
  4. Vlisides, P. E., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Avidan, M. S. (2019). [Review of Hypnotic depth and postoperative death: a Bayesian perspective and an Independent Discussion of a clinical trial]. British journal of anaesthesia, 122(4), 421–427.
  5. Adam, D. (2019). Reproducibility trial publishes two conclusions for one paper. Nature, 570(7759), 16.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.