ReviewSpinal cord2019
A beginner's guide to data stewardship and data sharing.
Review in Spinal cord, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Physiotherapy interventions for the treatment of spasticity in people with spinal cord injury: a systematic review.Spinal cord · 2021Pooled it
- The challenges of research data management in cardiovascular science: a DGK and DZHK position paper-executive summary.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2024Review
- Big Brain Data Initiatives in Universiti Sains Malaysia: Data Stewardship to Data Repository and Data Sharing.Neuroinformatics · 2023Article
- Predicting 30-Day Readmission Risk for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Through a Federated Machine Learning Architecture on Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) Data: Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Discoverability of information on clinical trial data-sharing platforms.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- The views, perspectives, and experiences of academic researchers with data sharing and reuse: A meta-synthesis.PloS one · 2020Article
- Should trials that are highly vulnerable to bias be excluded from systematic reviews?Spinal cord · 2019Article
- Article
- Reduce, reuse, recycle: good stewardship of research data.Spinal cord · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA narrative review of principles, benefits and disadvantages, as well as methods of research data sharing.
objectivesTo assist prospective Spinal Cord authors and others with understanding and implementing data sharing, so that various benefits of such sharing can accrue to all spinal cord injury research stakeholders.
settingInternational.
methodsThe medical research and health care services literature was reviewed nonsystematically for relevant articles, and web sites were explored for information and services offered by various pertinent organizations.
resultsGrant makers, professional organizations, research journals, publishers, and other entities in the research field increasingly stress the ethics as well as societal and practical benefits of data sharing, and require researchers to do so within a reasonable time after data collection ends. Sharing data, retrospectively, generally requires much time and resources, but when a data management plan is part of a research proposal from the start, costs are limited, and grant makers allow these costs to be part of a budget. There are many organizations that offer information on or even assist with preparing data for sharing and actual deposit in a data repository.
conclusionsThe requirement of data sharing is not likely to go away, and researchers interested in submitting their reports to Spinal Cord would do well to familiarize themselves with the myriad practical issues involved in preparing data for sharing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30723254What 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.