Observational studyBMJ open2016
Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Data sharing practices in high-impact rehabilitation journals.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Open science interventions to improve reproducibility and replicability of research: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Lack of Data Sharing Despite Data Availability Statements in Studies Using Machine Learning Models for Prediction of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.Diabetes care · 2024Article
- Health data sharing attitudes towards primary and secondary use of data: a systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Clinical trial data sharing: a cross-sectional study of outcomes associated with two U.S. National Institutes of Health models.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Article
- Toward Open and Reproducible Epidemiology.American journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
- How often do cancer researchers make their data and code available and what factors are associated with sharing?BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Estimating the Prevalence of Transparency and Reproducibility-Related Research Practices in Psychology (2014-2017).Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2022Article
- Common-sense approaches to sharing tabular data alongside publication.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Review
- Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Learning from reproducing computational results: introducing three principles and thePhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2021Article
- Evaluation of Data Sharing After Implementation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Data Sharing Statement Requirement.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Rates and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: Protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.F1000Research · 2021Article
- Article
- Comment on: 'Moving Sport and Exercise Science Forward: A Call for the Adoption of More Transparent Research Practices'.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Article
- Availability of Research Data in High-Impact Addiction Journals with Data Sharing Policies.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo quantify data sharing trends and data sharing policy compliance at the British Medical Journal (BMJ) by analysing the rate of data sharing practices, and investigate attitudes and examine barriers towards data sharing.
designObservational study.
settingThe BMJ research archive.
participants160 randomly sampled BMJ research articles from 2009 to 2015, excluding meta-analysis and systematic reviews.
main outcome measuresPercentages of research articles that indicated the availability of their raw data sets in their data sharing statements, and those that easily made their data sets available on request.
results3 articles contained the data in the article. 50 out of 157 (32%) remaining articles indicated the availability of their data sets. 12 used publicly available data and the remaining 38 were sent email requests to access their data sets. Only 1 publicly available data set could be accessed and only 6 out of 38 shared their data via email. So only 7/157 research articles shared their data sets, 4.5% (95% CI 1.8% to 9%). For 21 clinical trials bound by the BMJ data sharing policy, the per cent shared was 24% (8% to 47%).
conclusionsDespite the BMJ's strong data sharing policy, sharing rates are low. Possible explanations for low data sharing rates could be: the wording of the BMJ data sharing policy, which leaves room for individual interpretation and possible loopholes; that our email requests ended up in researchers spam folders; and that researchers are not rewarded for sharing their data. It might be time for a more effective data sharing policy and better incentives for health and medical researchers to share their data.
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.