Transparent and reproducible pain research: a critical review

Lee, Hopin, Lamb, Sarah E., Bagg, Matthew K., Toomey, Elaine, Cashin, Aidan G., & Moseley, G. Lorimer. (2018). Reproducible and replicable pain research: a critical review. PAIN, 159(9), 1683-1689. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001254

Abstract

Recently, the degree to which scientific publications provide a reliable source of information has come under intense scrutiny. Reports suggest that a substantial amount of published literature is likely to be biased,28 distorted,27,53 and nonreproducible.7,50 This cuts across basic,10,55 preclinical,1,16 and clinical research.4,50 Although controversial, some have claimed that nonreproducible preclinical research consumes $28 billion/year (USD)16 and that 85% of biomedical research resources are wasted on biased research.35 The response from the scientific and policy community has been to identify common practices that contribute to the problem and develop methods to counteract them.47 This matter is very relevant to the pain field.1 Understanding the causes of nonreproducible and nonreplicable research and its ultimate impact on how we prevent and treat pain should assist pain researchers to improve the reproducibility and replicability of their work. The distinction between reproducibility and replicability is presented in Figure 1 and defined elsewhere.51 This article aims to: (1) outline the drivers of nonreproducible and nonreplicable research using examples from pain sciences and broader research fields; and (2) provide an overview of potential solutions and practices that could improve the reproducibility and replicability of pain research.

Publisher

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins for International Association for the Study of Pain

Rights

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland

cbn

Collections

School of Psychology (Scholarly Articles)