ArticleJournal of clinical psychology2026
Commentary: Making Patient Data Count-Opportunities and Challenges for Open Science in Clinical Psychology.
Article in Journal of clinical psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harnessing the power of FAIR data to advance sex/gender insights in psychotraumatology.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Review
- Commentary: Making Patient Data Count-Opportunities and Challenges for Open Science in Clinical Psychology.Journal of clinical psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open science practices-such as preregistration, data and material sharing, and open-access dissemination-are increasingly promoted across psychology, yet their specific value for clinical psychology has often been overlooked. This commentary argues that open science is particularly crucial for clinical psychology, where studies rely on small, hard-to-recruit patient samples, ethically sensitive data, and complex psychotherapeutic interventions. However, applying open science practices in one's research can be challenging. And yet, it is becoming increasingly necessary to take a stance on this. To support our colleagues in clinical psychology to take a stance on open science practices and to motivate them to apply these practices in their research, we describe here how the use of open science practices benefits or can benefit clinical psychology science and practice and provide some perspective on why we believe that the increasing use of open science practices is consistent with good scientific practice and the ethical standards of our profession. In addition, we discuss how calls for increased implementation of open science practices in psychological research can be reconciled with some of the challenges, concerns, and conflicts that can arise around open science practices, especially in clinical psychology. Finally, we extend open science's inclusive and collaborative stance to include "experts by experience" in the research process. Including our research topics in the research process is a specific facet of the open science approach in clinical psychology that has been overlooked.
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.