Cited by 41Research Data Management PracticesAcademic Publishing and Open AccessMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Data Sharing and Reanalyses Among Randomized Clinical Trials Published in Surgical Journals Before and After Adoption of a Data Availability and Reproducibility Policy

Open access
Bergeat, Damien, Lombard, Nicolas, Gasmi, Anis, Le Floch, Bastien, Naudet, Florian·2022·JAMA Network Open

Abstract

Importance: Clinical trial data sharing holds promise for maximizing the value of clinical research. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) adopted a policy promoting data sharing in July 2018. Objective: To evaluate the association of the ICMJE data sharing policy with data availability and reproducibility of main conclusions among leading surgical journals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study, conducted in October 2021, examined randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in 10 leading surgical journals before and after the implementation of the ICMJE data sharing policy in July 2018. Exposure: Implementation of the ICMJE data sharing policy. Main Outcomes and Measures: To demonstrate a pre-post increase in data availability from 5% to 25% (α = .05; β = 0.1), 65 RCTs published before and 65 RCTs published after the policy was issued were included, and their data were requested. The primary outcome was data availability (ie, the receipt of sufficient data to enable reanalysis of the primary outcome). When data sharing was available, the primary outcomes reported in the journal articles were reanalyzed to explore reproducibility. The reproducibility features of these studies were detailed. Results: Data were available for 2 of 65 RCTs (3.1%) published before the ICMJE policy and for 2 of 65 RCTs (3.1%) published after the policy was issued (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.07-14.19; P > .99). A data sharing statement was observed in 11 of 65 RCTs (16.9%) published after the policy vs none before the policy (risk ratio, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.81-2.68; P = .001). Data obtained for reanalysis (n = 4) were not from RCTs published with a data sharing statement. Of the 4 RCTs with available data, all of them had primary outcomes that were fully reproduced. However, discrepancies or inaccuracies that were not associated with study conclusions were identified in 3 RCTs. These concerned the number of patients included in 1 RCT, the management of missing values in another RCT, and discrepant timing for the principal outcome declared in the study registration and reported in the third RCT. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study suggests that data sharing practices are rare in surgical journals despite the ICMJE policy and that most RCTs published in these journals lack transparency. The results of these studies may not be reproducible by external researchers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.15209

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some authors cite concerns about the confidentiality of data from research participants, the inappropriate use of secondary data, and lower rewards for conducting original research.

    “Some authors cite concerns about the confidentiality of data from research participants, the inappropriate use of secondary data, and lower rewards for conducting original research [15, 16].”

    From Assessing transparency practices in dental randomized controlled trials (2024) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Results, “Common Challenges” (page unavailable), reports consent and ethical issues that limited data sharing, and the Methods, “Outcomes,” discusses deidentification. These passages support a concern about protecting participants’ data, but the paper does not identify inappropriate secondary use or lower rewards for original research as concerns cited by authors. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Data sharing does not happen for most randomised trials.

    “However, data sharing does not happen for most randomised trials.93 94 95 96 97”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [10]Journal Citation Reports. Clarivate. Accessed April 24, 2022. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/journal-citation-reports/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bergeat, D., Lombard, N., Gasmi, A., Le Floch, B., & Naudet, F.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Hôpital Pontchaillou (FR)
  • Department Digestive Surgery, CHU Rennes, Pontchaillou Hospital, Rennes, France
Corresponding author
Bergeat, Damien
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Published
2022-06-02
Volume
5
Issue
6
Pages
e2215209
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4281676126
Cited by
41
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3
FWCI
8.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-17-CE36-0010)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
data sharing, reproducibility, reanalysis, data availability, data sharing statements, missing data, surgical journals, research transparency
MeSH terms
Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Information Dissemination, Policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review