Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29440066›Full record

ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2018

Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in

Florian Naudet, Charlotte Sakarovitch, Perrine Janiaud, Ioana Cristea, Daniele Fanelli, David Moher, John P A Ioannidis

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

105 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Improving statistical reporting in psychology.Communications psychology · 2025
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Florian NaudetMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Charlotte SakarovitchQuantitative Sciences Unit, Division of Biomedical Informatics Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Perrine JaniaudMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Ioana CristeaMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Daniele FanelliMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
David MoherMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
John P A IoannidisMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA jioannid@stanford.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore the effectiveness of data sharing by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in journals with a full data sharing policy and to describe potential difficulties encountered in the process of performing reanalyses of the primary outcomes.

designSurvey of published RCTs.

settingPubMed/Medline. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs that had been submitted and published by

main outcome measureThe primary outcome was data availability, defined as the eventual receipt of complete data with clear labelling. Primary outcomes were reanalyzed to assess to what extent studies were reproduced. Difficulties encountered were described.

results37 RCTs (21 from

conclusionsData availability was not optimal in two journals with a strong policy for data sharing. When investigators shared data, most reanalyses largely reproduced the original results. Data sharing practices need to become more widespread and streamlined to allow meaningful reanalyses and reuse of data.

trial registrationOpen Science Framework osf.io/c4zke.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationData AccuracyHumansPeriodicals as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID29440066
PMCPMC5809812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.