ArticleSystematic reviews2016
Clinical research data sharing: what an open science world means for researchers involved in evidence synthesis.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Incentivising research data sharing: a scoping review.Wellcome open research · 2021Pooled it
- Reporting of cluster randomised crossover trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Design and validation of a conceptual model regarding impact of open science on healthcare research processes.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Statistical advising: Professional development opportunities for the biostatistician.Statistics in medicine · 2022Article
- Assessing Markers of Reproducibility and Transparency in Smoking Behaviour Change Intervention Evaluations.Journal of smoking cessation · 2021Article
- Predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recently announced a bold step forward to require data generated by interventional clinical trials that are published in its member journals to be responsibly shared with external investigators. The movement toward a clinical research culture that supports data sharing has important implications for the design, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. While data sharing is likely to enhance the science of evidence synthesis, facilitating the identification and inclusion of all relevant research, it will also pose key challenges, such as requiring broader search strategies and more thorough scrutiny of identified research. Furthermore, the adoption of data sharing initiatives by the clinical research community should challenge the community of researchers involved in evidence synthesis to follow suit, including the widespread adoption of systematic review registration, results reporting, and data sharing, to promote transparency and enhance the integrity of the research process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.