Transparent reporting of hypotheses and analyses in behavioral medicine research: an audit of publications in 2018 and 2008

Abstract

Objective We aimed to document the use of transparent reporting of hypotheses and analyses in behavioral medicine journals in 2018 and 2008. Design: We examined a randomly selected portion of articles published in 2018 and 2008 by behavioral medicine journals with the highest impact factor, excluding manuscripts that were reviews or purely descriptive. Main Outcome Measures: We coded whether articles explicitly stated if the hypotheses/outcomes/analyses were primary or secondary; if study was registered/pre-registered; if ‘exploratory’ or a related term was used to describe analyses/aims; and if power analyses were reported. Results: We coded 162 manuscripts published in 2018 (87% observational and 12% experimental). Sixteen percent were explicit in describing hypotheses/outcomes/analyses as primary or secondary, 51% appeared to report secondary hypotheses/outcomes/analyses but did not use term ‘secondary,’ and 33% were unclear. Registration occurred in 14% of studies, but 91% did not report which analyses were registered. ‘Exploratory’ or related term was used in 31% of studies. Power analyses were reported in 8% of studies. Compared to 2008 (n = 120), studies published in 2018 were more likely to be registered and less likely to be unclear if outcomes were primary or secondary. Conclusions: Behavioral medicine stakeholders should consider strategies to increase clarity of reporting, and particularly details that will inform readers if analyses were pre-planned or post-hoc. Study registration https://osf.io/39ztn

Keywords

• open science
• research methods
• scientific publication
• pre-registration