Up front and open, shrouded in secrecy, or somewhere in between? A Meta Research Systematic Review of Open Science Practices in Sport Medicine Research

Objective To investigate the extent and qualitatively synthesize open science practices within research published in the top five sports medicine journals from 01 May 2022 and 01 October 2022.

Design Meta-research systematic review

Data Sources MEDLINE

Eligibility Criteria Studies were included if they were published in one of the identified top five sports medicine journals as ranked by Clarivate. Studies were excluded if they were systematic reviews, qualitative research, grey literature, or animal or cadaver models.

Results 243 studies were included. The median number of open science practices met per study was 2, out of a maximum of 12 (Range: 0-8; IQR: 2). 234 studies (96%, 95% CI: 94-99) provided an author conflict of interest statement and 163 (67%, 95% CI: 62-73) reported funding. 21 studies (9%, 95% CI: 5-12) provided open access data. 54 studies (22%, 95% CI: 17-included a data availability statement and 3 (1%, 95% CI: 0-3) made code available. 76 studies (32%, 95% CI: 25-37) had transparent materials and 30 (12%, 95% CI: 8-16) included a reporting guideline. 28 studies (12%, 95% CI: 8-16) were pre-registered. 6 studies (3%, 95% CI: 1-4) published a protocol. 4 studies (2%, 95% CI: 0-3) reported the availability of an analysis plan. 7 studies (3%, 95% CI: 1-5) reported patient and public involvement.

Conclusion Sports medicine open science practices are extremely limited. The least followed practices were sharing code, data, and analysis plans. Without implementing open practices, barriers concerning the ability to aggregate findings and create cumulative science will continue to exist.