Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34753787›Full record

ArticleCMAJ open

Data-sharing practices in publications funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: a descriptive analysis.

Kevin B Read, Heather Ganshorn, Sarah Rutley, David R Scott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ open. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Costs of Anonymization: Case Study Using Clinical Data.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. A method for generating synthetic longitudinal health data.BMC medical research methodology · 2023
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
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

4 authors.

Kevin B ReadLeslie & Irene Dubé Health Sciences Library (Read), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask.; Taylor Family Digital Library (Ganshorn), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.; University Library (Rutley), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask.; University Library (Scott), University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alta. kevin.read@usask.ca.
Heather GanshornLeslie & Irene Dubé Health Sciences Library (Read), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask.; Taylor Family Digital Library (Ganshorn), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.; University Library (Rutley), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask.; University Library (Scott), University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alta.
Sarah RutleyLeslie & Irene Dubé Health Sciences Library (Read), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask.; Taylor Family Digital Library (Ganshorn), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.; University Library (Rutley), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask.; University Library (Scott), University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alta.
David R ScottLeslie & Irene Dubé Health Sciences Library (Read), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask.; Taylor Family Digital Library (Ganshorn), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.; University Library (Rutley), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask.; University Library (Scott), University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alta.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs Canada increases requirements for research data management and sharing, there is value in identifying how research data are shared and what has been done to make them findable and reusable. This study aimed to understand Canada's data-sharing landscape by reviewing how data funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) are shared and comparing researchers' data-sharing practices to best practices for research data management and sharing.

methodsWe performed a descriptive analysis of CIHR-funded publications from PubMed and PubMed Central published between 1946 and Dec. 31, 2019, that indicated that the research data underlying the results of the publication were shared. We analyzed each publication to identify how and where data were shared, who shared data and what documentation was included to support data reuse.

resultsOf 4144 CIHR-funded publications identified, 1876 (45.2%) included accessible data, 935 (22.6%) stated that data were available via request or application, and 300 (7.2%) stated that data sharing was not applicable or possible; we found no evidence of data sharing in 1558 publications (37.6%). Frequent data-sharing methods included via a repository (1549 [37.4%]), within supplementary files (1048 [25.3%]) and via request or application (935 [22.6%]). Overall, 554 publications (13.4%) included documentation that would facilitate data reuse.

interpretationPublications funded by the CIHR largely lack the metadata, access instructions and documentation to facilitate data discovery and reuse. Without measures to address these concerns and enhanced support for researchers seeking to implement best practices for research data management and sharing, much CIHR-funded research data will remain hidden, inaccessible and unusable.

Indexed as

Academies and InstitutesBiomedical ResearchInformation DisseminationCanadaCapital FinancingDatabases, FactualDocumentationHumansPublications

Identifiers

PMID34753787
PMCPMC8580829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.