RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Data and code availability statements in systematic reviews of interventions are often missing or inaccurate: a content analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.12.06.21267383
DO 10.1101/2021.12.06.21267383
A1 Page, Matthew J
A1 Nguyen, Phi-Yen
A1 Hamilton, Daniel G
A1 Haddaway, Neal R
A1 Kanukula, Raju
A1 Moher, David
A1 McKenzie, Joanne E
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/08/2021.12.06.21267383.abstract
AB Objectives To estimate the frequency of data and code availability statements in a random sample of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of aggregate data, summarise 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, behavioural or educational intervention that were indexed in PubMed, Education Collection via ProQuest, Scopus via Elsevier, and Social Sciences Citation Index and Science Citation Index Expanded via Web of Science during a four-week period (between November 2nd and December 2nd, 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 analysed”.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.What is new?Key findingsKey findingsData availability statements appeared in 31% of a random sample of 300 systematic reviews of interventions indexed during a four-week period in late 2020.40% of authors who provided a data availability statement 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 analysed”.What this adds to what is known?What this adds to what is known?Data and code availability statements, which require authors to specify whether the data or code used in their study are available and if so, where it can be accessed, are required by some journals.It was unclear how often data and code availability statements appear in systematic review manuscripts, and what systematic reviewers typically write in their statements.What is the implication and what should change now?What is the implication and what should change now?Data and code availability statements should appear routinely in systematic review manuscripts. Doing so would conform to recommendations in the PRISMA 2020 statement.Competing Interest StatementMJP and DM are editorial board members of the journal to which this manuscript was submitted.Funding StatementThis research was funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE200101618), held by MJP. DGH is supported by an Australian Commonwealth Government Research Training Program Scholarship. NRH is funded by an Alexander von Humboldt Experienced Researcher Fellowship. RK is supported by a Monash Graduate Scholarship and a Monash International Tuition Scholarship. DM is supported in part by a University Research Chair, University of Ottawa. JEM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development Fellowship (APP1143429). The funders had no role in the study design, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data and analytic code for this study are available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/ya4hp/ (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YA4HP). https://osf.io/ya4hp/