- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Methods not described to enable replication
- 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 |