Abstract:Introduction: Previous studies about the replicability of clinical research based on the published literature have suggested that highly cited articles are often contradicted or found to have inflated effects. Nevertheless, there are no recent updates of such efforts, and this situation may have changed over time. Methods: We searched the Web of Science database for articles studying medical interventions with more than 2000 citations, published between 2004 and 2018 in high-impact medical journals. We then searched for replications of these studies in PubMed using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome) framework. Replication success was evaluated by the presence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction and by overlap of the replication's effect size confidence interval (CIs) with that of the original study. Evidence of effect size inflation and potential predictors of replicability were also analyzed. Results: A total of 89 eligible studies, of which 24 had valid replications (17 meta-analyses and 7 primary studies) were found. Of these, 21 (88%) had effect sizes with overlapping CIs. Of 15 highly cited studies with a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome, 13 (87%) had a significant effect in the replication as well. When both criteria were considered together, the replicability rate in our sample was of 20 out of 24 (83%). There was no evidence of systematic inflation in these highly cited studies, with a mean effect size ratio of 1.03 [95% CI (0.88, 1.21)] between initial and subsequent effects. Due to the small number of contradicted results, our analysis had low statistical power to detect predictors of replicability. Conclusion: Although most studies did not have eligible replications, the replicability rate of highly cited clinical studies in our sample was higher than in previous estimates, with little evidence of systematic effect size inflation. This estimate is based on a very select sample of studies and may not be generalizable to clinical research in general.

Quantifying Replicability and Consistency in Systematic Reviews

Quantifying replicability in systematic reviews: the r-value

Irreproducibility in Searches of Scientific Literature: A Comparative Analysis.

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: six practical recommendations

Quantify and control reproducibility in high-throughput experiments

The assessment of replicability using the sum of p-values

Statistical Methods for Replicability Assessment

Statistical Assessment of Replicability via Bayesian Model Criticism

Robust Point and Variance Estimation for Meta‐analyses with Selective Reporting and Dependent Effect Sizes

Replicability of simulation studies for the investigation of statistical methods: the RepliSims project

Statistical Analysis of Data Repeatability Measures

A new standard for the analysis and design of replication studies

A checklist to guide sensitivity analyses and replications of impact evaluations

Estimating the replicability of highly cited clinical research (2004-2018)

Methods to Address Confounding and Other Biases in Meta-Analyses: Review and Recommendations

A Systematic Survey Identified 36 Criteria for Assessing Effect Modification Claims in Randomized Trials or Meta-Analyses

A confidence interval robust to publication bias for random-effects meta-analysis of few studies

Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015

Towards more scientific meta-analyses

Statistical Methods for Dealing with Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis