ArticleBMJ open2025
Data sharing statements for clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey of cardiology journals.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe International Committee of Medical Journal Editors requires data sharing statements in trial publications, but whether cardiology journals request data sharing statements in clinical trial submissions is unclear. We performed a survey to assess whether cardiology journals request data sharing statements in clinical trials. DESIGN, SETTING, DATA SOURCE AND
participantsAll cardiac and cardiovascular systems journals that published clinical trials from January 2019 to December 2022 were included. The study outcome was journal requests for data sharing statements. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between journal characteristics and journal requests. We also explored whether journal requests aligned with their subsequently published clinical trials.
resultsA total of 126 journals were included, among which 96 (76.2%) requested data sharing statements in clinical trials. Elsevier journals and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials endorsement had increased adjusted odds of requesting data sharing statements, with an OR of 5.74 (95% CI 1.45 to 22.70) and 7.21 (2.69 to 19.32), respectively. In the 78 journals that requested statements, 24 (30.8%) indeed did not publish any data sharing statement in their trial reports.
conclusionsApproximately one in four cardiology journals did not request data sharing statements on clinical trial submissions, while a substantial inconsistency existed between journal requests and the actual publications of statements in their published trial reports.
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.