Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/139343
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Data and code availability statements in systematic reviews of interventions were often missing or inaccurate: a content analysis
Author: Page, M.J.
Nguyen, P.Y.
Hamilton, D.G.
Haddaway, N.R.
Kanukula, R.
Moher, D.
McKenzie, J.E.
Citation: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2022; 147:1-10
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Issue Date: 2022
ISSN: 0895-4356
1878-5921
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Matthew J. Page, Phi-Yen Nguyen, Daniel G. Hamilton, Neal R. Haddaway, Raju Kanukula, David Moher, Joanne E. McKenzie
Abstract: Objectives: To estimate the frequency of data and code availability statements in a random sample of systematic reviews with metaanalysis of aggregate data, summarize the content of the statements and investigate how often data and code files were shared. Methods: We searched for systematic reviews with meta-analysis of aggregate data on the effects of a health, social, behavioral, or educational intervention that were indexed in PubMed, Education Collection via ProQuest, Scopus via Elsevier, or Social Sciences Citation Index and Science Citation Index Expanded via Web of Science during a 4-week period (between November 2, and December 2, 2020). Records were randomly sorted and screened independently by two authors until our target sample of 300 systematic reviews was reached. Two authors independently recorded whether a data or code availability statement (or both) appeared in each review and coded the content of the statements using an inductive approach. Results: Of the 300 included systematic reviews with meta-analysis, 86 (29%) had a data availability statement, and seven (2%) had both a data and code availability statement. In 12/93 (13%) data availability statements, authors stated that data files were available for download from the journal website or a data repository, which we verified as being true. While 39/93 (42%) authors stated data were available upon request, 37/93 (40%) implied that sharing of data files was not necessary or applicable to them, most often because ‘‘all data appear in the article’’ or ‘‘no datasets were generated or analyzed’’. Discussion: Data and code availability statements appear infrequently in systematic review manuscripts. Authors who do provide a data availability statement often incorrectly imply that data sharing is not applicable to systematic reviews. Our results suggest the need for various interventions to increase data and code sharing by systematic reviewers.
Keywords: Evidence synthesis; Open synthesis; Open science; Open data; Reproducibility of research; Research integrity
Rights: © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.003
Grant ID: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1143429
http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DE200101618
Published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.003
Appears in Collections:Public Health publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.