Data and code availability statements in systematic reviews of interventions were often missing or inaccurate: a content analysis

Ref ID 943
First Author M. J. Page
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2022
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435622000646?via%3Dihub
Keywords Open data
Author
Transparency
General medical
Non-Cochrane reviews
Problem(s) Methods not described to enable replication
Number of systematic reviews included 300
Summary of Findings From 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, were 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”.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes