Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40144285›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2025

Transparency in the secondary use of health data: assessing the status quo of guidance and best practices.

Olmo R van den Akker, Robert T Thibault, John P A Ioannidis, Susanne G Schorr, Daniel Strech

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Olmo R van den AkkerQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0712-3746
Robert T ThibaultMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
John P A IoannidisMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3118-6859
Susanne G SchorrQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Daniel StrechQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We evaluated what guidance exists in the literature to improve the transparency of studies that make secondary use of health data. To find peer-reviewed papers, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar. To find institutional documents, we used our personal expertise to draft a list of health organizations and searched their websites. We quantitatively and qualitatively coded different types of research transparency: registration, methods reporting, results reporting, data sharing and code sharing. We found 56 documents that provide recommendations to improve the transparency of studies making secondary use of health data, mainly in relation to study registration (

Indexed as

code sharingdata sharingmethods reportingregistrationresults reporting

Identifiers

PMID40144285
PMCPMC11937929

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.