ArticleInternational journal of population data science2025
Extent of Open Science Practices in the Reporting of Real World Evidence Research.
Article in International journal of population data science, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Open sharing of research methods and software code is fundamental to open science principles and reproducible research practices and has long been the norm in some scientific disciplines. Increasingly, scientific publishers are introducing policies to encourage or mandate sharing of research protocols and analytical code. Code sharing is especially important when research data cannot be shared, as is often the case in research using population data. However, the prevalence of protocol and code sharing in population data science research has been underexplored. Objectives: To assess open science practice usage by authors in real world evidence (RWE) research published in the International Journal of Population Data Science (IJPDS). Method: We reviewed RWE research articles publishing estimates of associations in the IJPDS from January 2019 to October 2024. We determined the proportion of published articles reporting (i) a link to a study protocol, (ii) a link to a pre-registered study protocol, (iii) a statement about the availability of the data, (iv) a link to the analytical code, and (iv) reference to a reporting checklist or guideline. Results: None of the 41 eligible articles met all five open science domains. One article included a link to the study protocol and none cited a pre-registered protocol. Fourteen (34%) articles included a statement about data availability. No articles included a link to the analytical code, although one included it in supplementary material and two indicated availability on request. Five (12%) articles referred to using a reporting checklist. There was no clear evidence of increasing adoption of open science practices over time. Conclusions: Researcher alignment with international best practice for open science was poor among RWE articles published in IJPDS. Potential solutions to encourage an open science culture include increasing awareness through training and education, building Communities of Practice, providing incentives and implementing open science publication policies.
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.