Data Sharing and Reanalyses Among Randomized Clinical Trials Published in Surgical Journals Before and After Adoption of a Data Availability and Reproducibility Policy

A study of search strategy availability statements and sharing practices for systematic reviews: Ask and you might receive

The literature search underpins data collection for all systematic reviews (SRs). The SR reporting guideline PRISMA, and its extensions, aim to facilitate research transparency and reproducibility, and ultimately improve the quality of research, by instructing authors to provide specific research materials and data upon publication of the manuscript. Search strategies are one item of data that are explicitly included in PRISMA and the critical appraisal tool AMSTAR2. Yet some authors use search availability statements implying that the search strategies are available upon request instead of providing strategies up front. We sought out reviews with search availability statements, characterized them, and requested the search strategies from authors via email. Over half of the included reviews cited PRISMA but less than a third included any search strategies. After requesting the strategies via email as instructed, we received replies from 46% of authors, and eventually received at least one search strategy from 36% of authors. Requesting search strategies via email has a low chance of success. Ask and you might receive-but you probably will not. SRs that do not make search strategies available are low quality at best according to AMSTAR2; Journal editors can and should enforce the requirement for authors to include their search strategies alongside their SR manuscripts.

Randomized controlled trials in lung cancer surgery: How are we doing?

Objective

Randomized control trials are considered the highest level of evidence, yet the scalability and practicality of implementing randomized control trials in the thoracic surgical oncology space are not well described. The aim of this study is to understand what types of randomized control trials have been conducted in thoracic surgical oncology and ascertain their success rate in completing them as originally planned.

Methods

The ClinicalTrials.gov database was queried in April 2023 to identify registered randomized control trials performed in patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery (by any technique) as part of their treatment.

Results

There were 68 eligible randomized control trials; 33 (48.5%) were intended to examine different perioperative patient management strategies (eg, analgesia, ventilation, drainage) or to examine different intraoperative technical aspects (eg, stapling, number of ports, port placement, ligation). The number of randomized control trials was relatively stable over time until a large increase in randomized control trials starting in 2016. Forty-four of the randomized control trials (64.7%) were open-label studies, 43 (63.2%) were conducted in a single facility, 66 (97.1%) had 2 arms, and the mean number of patients enrolled per randomized control trial was 236 (SD, 187). Of 21 completed randomized control trials (31%), the average time to complete accrual was 1605 days (4.4 years) and average time to complete primary/secondary outcomes and adverse events collection was 2125 days (5.82 years).

Conclusions

Given the immense investment of resources that randomized control trials require, these findings suggest the need to scrutinize future randomized control trial proposals to assess the likelihood of successful completion. Future study is needed to understand the various contributing factors to randomized control trial success or failure.

The lymphatic filariasis treatment study landscape: A systematic review of study characteristics and the case for an individual participant data platform

BACKGROUND

Lymphatic filariasis (LF) is a neglected tropical disease (NTD) targeted by the World Health Organization for elimination as a public health problem (EPHP). Since 2000, more than 9 billion treatments of antifilarial medicines have been distributed through mass drug administration (MDA) programmes in 72 endemic countries and 17 countries have reached EPHP. Yet in 2021, nearly 900 million people still required MDA with combinations of albendazole, diethylcarbamazine and/or ivermectin. Despite the reliance on these drugs, there remain gaps in understanding of variation in responses to treatment. As demonstrated for other infectious diseases, some urgent questions could be addressed by conducting individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses. Here, we present the results of a systematic literature review to estimate the abundance of IPD on pre- and post-intervention indicators of infection and/or morbidity and assess the feasibility of building a global data repository.

METHODOLOGY

We searched literature published between 1st January 2000 and 5th May 2023 in 15 databases to identify prospective studies assessing LF treatment and/or morbidity management and disease prevention (MMDP) approaches. We considered only studies where individual participants were diagnosed with LF infection or disease and were followed up on at least one occasion after receiving an intervention/treatment.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We identified 138 eligible studies from 23 countries, having followed up an estimated 29,842 participants after intervention. We estimate 14,800 (49.6%) IPD on pre- and post-intervention infection indicators including microfilaraemia, circulating filarial antigen and/or ultrasound indicators measured before and after intervention using 8 drugs administered in various combinations. We identified 33 studies on MMDP, estimating 6,102 (20.4%) IPD on pre- and post-intervention clinical morbidity indicators only. A further 8,940 IPD cover a mixture of infection and morbidity outcomes measured with other diagnostics, from participants followed for adverse event outcomes only or recruited after initial intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The LF treatment study landscape is heterogeneous, but the abundance of studies and related IPD suggest that establishing a global data repository to facilitate IPD meta-analyses would be feasible and useful to address unresolved questions on variation in treatment outcomes across geographies, demographics and in underrepresented groups. New studies using more standardized approaches should be initiated to address the scarcity and inconsistency of data on morbidity management.

The trustworthiness of the cumulative knowledge in industrial/organizational psychology: The current state of affairs and a path forward

The goal of industrial/organizational (IO) psychology, is to build and organize trustworthy knowledge about people-related phenomena in the workplace. Unfortunately, as with other scientific disciplines, our discipline may be experiencing a "crisis of confidence" stemming from the lack of reproducibility and replicability of many of our field's research findings, which would suggest that much of our research may be untrustworthy. If a scientific discipline's research is deemed untrustworthy, it can have dire consequences, including the withdraw of funding for future research. In this focal article, we review the current state of reproducibility and replicability in IO psychology and related fields. As part of this review, we discuss factors that make it less likely that research findings will be trustworthy, including the prevalence of scientific misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs), and errors. We then identify some root causes of these issues and provide several potential remedies. In particular, we highlight the need for improved research methods and statistics training as well as a re-alignment of the incentive structure in academia. To accomplish this, we advocate for changes in the reward structure, improvements to the peer review process, and the implementation of open science practices. Overall, addressing the current "crisis of confidence" in IO psychology requires individual researchers, academic institutions, and publishers to embrace system-wide change.

Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise research investigating data and code sharing in medicine and health to establish an accurate representation of the prevalence of sharing, how this frequency has changed over time, and what factors influence availability.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the preprint servers medRxiv, bioRxiv, and MetaArXiv were searched from inception to 1 July 2021. Forward citation searches were also performed on 30 August 2022.

REVIEW METHODS

Meta-research studies that investigated data or code sharing across a sample of scientific articles presenting original medical and health research were identified. Two authors screened records, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted summary data from study reports when individual participant data could not be retrieved. Key outcomes of interest were the prevalence of statements that declared that data or code were publicly or privately available (declared availability) and the success rates of retrieving these products (actual availability). The associations between data and code availability and several factors (eg, journal policy, type of data, trial design, and human participants) were also examined. A two stage approach to meta-analysis of individual participant data was performed, with proportions and risk ratios pooled with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The review included 105 meta-research studies examining 2 121 580 articles across 31 specialties. Eligible studies examined a median of 195 primary articles (interquartile range 113-475), with a median publication year of 2015 (interquartile range 2012-2018). Only eight studies (8%) were classified as having a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed a prevalence of declared and actual public data availability of 8% (95% confidence interval 5% to 11%) and 2% (1% to 3%), respectively, between 2016 and 2021. For public code sharing, both the prevalence of declared and actual availability were estimated to be <0.5% since 2016. Meta-regressions indicated that only declared public data sharing prevalence estimates have increased over time. Compliance with mandatory data sharing policies ranged from 0% to 100% across journals and varied by type of data. In contrast, success in privately obtaining data and code from authors historically ranged between 0% and 37% and 0% and 23%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The review found that public code sharing was persistently low across medical research. Declarations of data sharing were also low, increasing over time, but did not always correspond to actual sharing of data. The effectiveness of mandatory data sharing policies varied substantially by journal and type of data, a finding that might be informative for policy makers when designing policies and allocating resources to audit compliance.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/7SX8U.

How often do cancer researchers make their data and code available and what factors are associated with sharing?

BACKGROUND

Various stakeholders are calling for increased availability of data and code from cancer research. However, it is unclear how commonly these products are shared, and what factors are associated with sharing. Our objective was to evaluate how frequently oncology researchers make data and code available and explore factors associated with sharing.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis of a random sample of 306 cancer-related articles indexed in PubMed in 2019 which studied research subjects with a cancer diagnosis was performed. All articles were independently screened for eligibility by two authors. Outcomes of interest included the prevalence of affirmative sharing declarations and the rate with which declarations connected to data complying with key FAIR principles (e.g. posted to a recognised repository, assigned an identifier, data license outlined, non-proprietary formatting). We also investigated associations between sharing rates and several journal characteristics (e.g. sharing policies, publication models), study characteristics (e.g. cancer rarity, study design), open science practices (e.g. pre-registration, pre-printing) and subsequent citation rates between 2020 and 2021.

RESULTS

One in five studies declared data were publicly available (59/306, 19%, 95% CI: 15-24%). However, when data availability was investigated this percentage dropped to 16% (49/306, 95% CI: 12-20%), and then to less than 1% (1/306, 95% CI: 0-2%) when data were checked for compliance with key FAIR principles. While only 4% of articles that used inferential statistics reported code to be available (10/274, 95% CI: 2-6%), the odds of reporting code to be available were 5.6 times higher for researchers who shared data. Compliance with mandatory data and code sharing policies was observed in 48% (14/29) and 0% (0/6) of articles, respectively. However, 88% of articles (45/51) included data availability statements when required. Policies that encouraged data sharing did not appear to be any more effective than not having a policy at all. The only factors associated with higher rates of data sharing were studying rare cancers and using publicly available data to complement original research.

CONCLUSIONS

Data and code sharing in oncology occurs infrequently, and at a lower rate than would be expected given the prevalence of mandatory sharing policies. There is also a large gap between those declaring data to be available, and those archiving data in a way that facilitates its reuse. We encourage journals to actively check compliance with sharing policies, and researchers consult community-accepted guidelines when archiving the products of their research.

Sharing study materials in health and medical research

Making study materials available allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the scientific literature. Sharing can take many forms and include a wide variety of outputs including code and data. Biomedical research can benefit from increased transparency but faces unique challenges for sharing, for instance, confidentiality concerns around participants' medical data. Both general and specialised repositories exist to aid in sharing most study materials. Sharing may also require skills and resources to ensure that it is done safely and effectively. Educating researchers on how to best share their materials, and properly rewarding these practices, requires action from a variety of stakeholders including journals, funders and research institutions.