ArticlePloS one2024
Breaking the silence of sharing data in medical research.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The state of data sharing in rheumatology: a systematic review of top journal practices.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Factors influencing intra-group data sharing in China's central state-owned enterprises: An information ecology perspective.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data sharing is highly advocated in the scientific community, with numerous organizations, funding agencies, and journals promoting transparency and collaboration. However, limited research exists on actual data sharing practices. We conducted a comprehensive analysis of the intent to share individual participant data (IPD) in a total of 313,990 studies encompassing clinical trials and observational studies obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov, spanning the period from 2000 to 2023. Our study found that only 10.3% of principal investigators (PIs) expressed intent to share IPD. Clinical trials were more likely to share data than observational studies (odds ratio, OR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.92-2.04). Large sample size studies were 1.69 times more likely to share data than small ones (95% CI: 1.65-1.73). Studies registered after 2018 were 1.6 times more likely to share data (95% CI: 1.57-1.64) than before 2019. NIH and other US Federal agency-funded studies had 1.49 times higher odds of sharing data (95% CI: 1.43-1.55) than other funders. USA-based studies were 1.53 times more likely to share data (95% CI: 1.49-1.57) than out of USA. Biological trials were 1.58 times more likely to share data than drug and other trials (95% CI: 1.51-1.66). Phase III trials had the highest odds, 2.47 times, of sharing data (95% CI: 2.38-2.56) than non-Phase III trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.