File(s) not publicly available
Are questionable research practices facilitating new discoveries in sport and exercise medicine? The proportion of supported hypotheses is implausibly high
journal contributionposted on 23.02.2021, 00:16 by F Büttner, E Toomey, S McClean, M Roe, Eamonn DelahuntEamonn Delahunt
© 2020 Author(s) (or their employer(s)). No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Questionable research practices (QRPs) are intentional and unintentional practices that can occur when designing, conducting, analysing, and reporting research, producing biased study results. Sport and exercise medicine (SEM) research is vulnerable to the same QRPs that pervade the biomedical and psychological sciences, producing false-positive results and inflated effect sizes. Approximately 90% of biomedical research reports supported study hypotheses, provoking suspicion about the field-wide presence of systematic biases to facilitate study findings that confirm researchers' expectations. In this education review, we introduce three common QRPs (ie, HARKing, P-hacking and Cherry-picking), perform a cross-sectional study to assess the proportion of original SEM research that reports supported study hypotheses, and draw attention to existing solutions and resources to overcome QRPs that manifest in exploratory research. We hypothesised that ≥85% of original SEM research studies would report supported study hypotheses. Two independent assessors systematically identified, screened, included, and extracted study data from original research articles published between 1 January 2019 and 31 May 2019 in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, Sports Medicine, the American Journal of Sports Medicine, and the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. We extracted data relating to whether studies reported that the primary hypothesis was supported or rejected by the results. Study hypotheses, methodologies, and analysis plans were preregistered at the Open Science Framework. One hundred and twenty-nine original research studies reported at least one study hypothesis, of which 106 (82.2%) reported hypotheses that were supported by study results. Of 106 studies reporting that primary hypotheses were supported by study results, 75 (70.8%) studies reported that the primary hypothesis was fully supported by study results. The primary study hypothesis was partially supported by study results in 28 (26.4%) studies. We detail open science practices and resources that aim to safe-guard against QRPs that bely the credibility and replicability of original research findings.
JournalBritish Journal of Sports Medicine
Rights StatementThe Author reserves all moral rights over the deposited text and must be credited if any re-use occurs. Documents deposited in OPAL are the Open Access versions of outputs published elsewhere. Changes resulting from the publishing process may therefore not be reflected in this document. The final published version may be obtained via the publisher’s DOI. Please note that additional copyright and access restrictions may apply to the published version.
Science & TechnologyLife Sciences & BiomedicineSport SciencesmethodologicaleducationresearchstatisticssportPUBLICATION DECISIONSREGISTERED-REPORTSSCIENCEREPLICABILITYINCENTIVESHARKINGPUBLISHTESTSTRUTHHumansExerciseData Interpretation, StatisticalSports MedicineResearchResearch DesignResearch Personnel