Raw data were not disclosed in 95% of PubMed-indexed heart failure meta-analyses in 2021: A systematic analysis of transparency.

BACKGROUND: The rising concern of irreproducible and non-transparent studies poses a significant challenge in modern medical literature. The impact of this issue on cardiology, particularly in the subfield of heart failure, remains poorly understood. To address this knowledge gap, we assessed the quality of evidence presented in recent heart failure meta-analyses by exploring several crucial transparency indicators.

METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study and searched PubMed for meta - analyses themed around heart failure. We included the 100 most recent publications from 2021 and investigated the presence of several indices that are associated with transparency and reproducibility.

RESULTS: The vast majority of the papers did not include their raw data (95/100, 95%) nor their analytic code (99/100, 99%). Less than half (42/100, 42%) preregistered their protocol, while only 65/100 (65%) adhered to a reporting guidelines method. Bias calculation for the respective studies included in each meta - analysis was present in 83/100 (83%) papers and publication bias was measured in approximately half (56/100, 56%).

CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that meta-analyses in the field of heart failure present important information of transparency infrequently. Therefore, reproduction and validation of their findings seems to be practically impossible.