Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42116839›Full record

ArticleThe journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association2025

Data-sharing practices in publications funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: implications for health sciences librarians.

David R Scott, Sheilah C Ayers, Kevin B Read

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

David R ScottMLIS, MA, Health Sciences Librarian, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB.
Sheilah C AyersMLIS.
Kevin B ReadMLIS, MAS, Associate Librarian, Research Data Management and Open Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Funding bodies such as Canada's Tri-Agency have implemented requirements for grant recipients to encourage improved research data management (RDM) practices and data sharing. Consequently, RDM and data sharing have become a higher priority for researchers and stakeholders supporting the research process, including librarians. Health sciences research can present special challenges to those wishing to share and use research data, as access to sensitive data must be restricted. This study examines the data sharing practices of researchers funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in recent years. Methods: We ran a search of PubMed Central to identify papers funded by CIHR that were published between 2020 and 2023 and had associated data. From the resulting records, we drew a sample of 368 articles. Using Qualtrics for each article, we recorded if and how data was shared and what types of documentation were provided alongside the data. Results were exported to and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Results: We found that 69% of papers included a data availability statement. 34% of articles made at least some data readily accessible, while 31% indicated that some data was available via request or application. Only 9% of articles supplied the kinds of documentation that would support reuse of the data. Conclusion: Those seeking to reuse Canadian health sciences research data continue to face significant hurdles. We offer ideas for health sciences librarians looking to support researchers in their efforts to make data available and usable while respecting restrictions required due to ethical considerations.

Identifiers

PMID42116839
PMCPMC13157968

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.