Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19308065›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2009

Data sharing in genomics--re-shaping scientific practice.

Jane Kaye, Catherine Heeney, Naomi Hawkins, Jantina de Vries, Paula Boddington

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 137 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
137citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

137 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

77 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jane KayeThe Ethox Centre, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK. jane.kaye@ethox.ox.ac.uk
Catherine Heeney
Naomi Hawkins
Jantina de Vries
Paula Boddington

Funding

Wellcome Trust 081407Wellcome Trust WT 076070/Z/04/ZWellcome Trust WT 077869/Z/05/ZWellcome Trust WT 081407/Z/06/ZWellcome Trust WT 083326/Z/07/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Funding bodies have recently introduced a requirement that data sharing must be a consideration of all funding applications in genomics. As with all new developments this condition has had an impact on scientific practice, particularly in the area of publishing and in the conduct of research. We discuss the challenges that must be addressed if the full benefits of data sharing, as envisaged by funders, are to be realized.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationEthics, ResearchGenomics

Identifiers

PMID19308065
PMCPMC2672783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.