ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Evaluating the prevalence and application of data sharing statements in high-impact ophthalmology journals.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a growing burden that highlights the need for ophthalmology research to improve treatment outcomes and patient care. By promoting transparency, reproducibility, and collaboration, Data Sharing Statements (DSS) provide a formal declaration of whether and how data can be accessed, reused, or shared, ensuring that research findings can be validated. This study examines the prevalence, content, and implementation of DSS in ophthalmology journals from 2018 to 2023.
methodsA comprehensive literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed) was conducted to evaluate clinical studies published in ten leading ophthalmology journals between January 1, 2018, and December 14, 2023. Data extraction was conducted via a standardized form in a masked, duplicate fashion. A hierarchical logistic regression was used to assess factors with potential influence on DSS inclusion. A qualitative analysis was performed to identify common themes in DSS.
resultsOf the 1385 articles analyzed, 326 (23.54%) included a DSS, with notable variability in DSS inclusion between journals. The British Journal of Ophthalmology had the highest DSS rate (152/228, 66.67%), while Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science had the lowest (4/103, 3.88%). Clinical trials were the most observed study design; however, DSS rates were low (183/667; 27%). Factors including study design, impact factor, funding type, and article access did not significantly influence DSS inclusion. The most common DSS themes were Conditional Data Availability (199/302, 65.89%) and Gatekeeper Role (87/302, 28.81%).
conclusionImplementing stronger mandates and adopting standardized data-sharing policies could address barriers to data-sharing practices, improving transparency and reproducibility in ophthalmology research.
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.