Up Front and Open? Shrouded in Secrecy? Or Somewhere in Between? A Meta-Research Systematic Review of Open Science Practices in Sport Medicine Research.

To investigate open science practices in research published in the top 5 sports medicine journals from May 1, 2022, and October 1, 2022. A meta-research systematic review. Open science practices were searched in MEDLINE. We included original scientific research published in one of the identified top 5 sports medicine journals in 2022 as ranked by Clarivate: (1) , (2) , (3) , (4) , and (5) . Studies were excluded if they were systematic reviews, qualitative research, gray literature, or animal or cadaver models. Open science practices were extracted in accordance with the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines and patient and public involvement. Two hundred forty-three studies were included. The median number of open science practices in each study was 2, out of a maximum of 12 (range: 0-8; interquartile range: 2). Two hundred thirty-four studies (96%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 94%-99%) provided an author conflict-of-interest statement and 163 (67%, 95% CI: 62%-73%) reported funding. Twenty-one studies (9%, 95% CI: 5%-12%) provided open-access data. Fifty-four studies (22%, 95% CI: 17%-27%) included a data availability statement and 3 (1%, 95% CI: 0%-3%) made code available. Seventy-six studies (32%, 95% CI: 25%-37%) had transparent materials and 30 (12%, 95% CI: 8%-16%) used a reporting guideline. Twenty-eight studies (12%, 95% CI: 8%-16%) were preregistered. Six studies (3%, 95% CI: 1%-4%) published a protocol. Four studies (2%, 95% CI: 0%-3%) reported an analysis plan a priori. Seven studies (3%, 95% CI: 1%-5%) reported patient and public involvement. Open science practices in the sports medicine field are extremely limited. The least followed practices were sharing code, data, and analysis plans. .