Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42244393›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical psychology2026

Commentary: Making Patient Data Count-Opportunities and Challenges for Open Science in Clinical Psychology.

Jan C Cwik, Barbara Cludius, Dorothée Bentz, Marcel Riehle, Johannes C Ehrenthal, Anke Haberkamp, Annika Clamor, Simon E Blackwell, Maike Salazar Kämpf, Edgar Nazarenus and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

16 authors.

Jan C CwikProfessorship for Applied Psychology, Faculty of Health Care, Hochschule Niederrhein, Krefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2290-353X
Barbara CludiusDepartment of Psychology, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Dorothée BentzDepartment of Biomedicine and Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Marcel RiehleDepartment of Psychology, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.
Johannes C EhrenthalDepartment of Psychology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9428-3763
Anke HaberkampDepartment of Psychology, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.
Annika ClamorFaculty of Human Sciences, MSH Medical School Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Simon E BlackwellInstitute of Psychology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Maike Salazar KämpfFaculty of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Edgar NazarenusDepartment of Experimental Psychopathology, University of Hildesheim, Hildesheim, Germany.
Rima-Maria RahalBehavioral Law & Economics, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1404-0471
Anne MöllmannDepartment of Psychology, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0439-8258
Jakob Fink-LamotteClinical Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4384-4903
Juliane BurghardtDivision of Clinical Psychology, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems, Austria.
Jan R BoehnkeSchool of Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Kevin HilbertFaculty of Health Sciences, Health and Medical University Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Information DisseminationPsychology, ClinicalHumans

Identifiers

PMID42244393
PMCPMC13441373

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.