Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Apr 10;1(2):e12008.
doi: 10.1002/cesm.12008. eCollection 2023 Apr.

Systematic reviewers' perspectives on sharing review data, analytic code, and other materials: A survey

Phi-Yen Nguyen  1 , Joanne E McKenzie  1 , Daniel G Hamilton  2   3 , David Moher  4   5 , Peter Tugwell  5   6   7 , Fiona M Fidler  2   8 , Neal R Haddaway  9   10 , Julian P T Higgins  11 , Raju Kanukula  1 , Sathya Karunananthan  6   12 , Lara J Maxwell  13 , Steve McDonald  1 , Shinichi Nakagawa  14 , David Nunan  15 , Vivian A Welch  5   6 , Matthew J Page  1
Affiliations

Systematic reviewers' perspectives on sharing review data, analytic code, and other materials: A survey

Phi-Yen Nguyen et al. Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. .

Abstract

Background: There are many benefits of sharing data, analytic code, and other materials, yet these items are infrequently shared among systematic reviews (SRs). It is unclear which factors influence authors' decisions to share data, code, or materials when publishing their SRs. Therefore, we aimed to explore systematic reviewers' perspectives on the importance of sharing review materials and factors that might influence such practices.

Methods: We searched PubMed for SRs published from January to April 2021, from which we randomly allocated 50% to this survey and 50% to another survey on the replication of SRs. We sent an electronic survey to authors of these SRs (n = 4671) using Qualtrics. Quantitative responses were summarized using frequency analysis. Free-text answers were coded using an inductive approach.

Results: The response rate was 9% (n = 417). Most participants supported routine sharing of search strategies (84%) but fewer for analytic code (43%) or files documenting data preparation (38%). Most participants agreed that normative practices within the discipline were an important facilitator (78%). Major perceived barriers were lack of time (62%) and suitable sharing platforms (31%). Few participants were required by funders (19%) or institutions (17%) to share data, and only 12% of participants reported receiving training on data sharing. Commonly perceived consequences of data sharing were lost opportunities for future publications (50%), misuse of data (48%), and issues with intellectual property (40%). In their most recent reviews, participants who did not share data cited the lack of journal requirements (56%) or noted the review did not include any statistical analysis that required sharing (29%).

Conclusion: Certain types of review materials were considered unnecessary for sharing, despite their importance to the review's transparency and reproducibility. Structural barriers and concerns about negative consequences hinder data sharing among systematic reviewers. Normalization and institutional incentives are essential to promote data-sharing practices in evidence-synthesis research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of recruitment and data collection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Participants' opinions on how often systematic review files should be shared publicly.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Participants' opinions on factors influencing decisions to share review materials.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Participants' opinions on potential consequences of sharing review materials.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Welch V, Petticrew M, Ueffing E, et al. Does consideration and assessment of effects on health equity affect the conclusions of systematic reviews? A methodology study. PLoS One. 2012;7:e31360. 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0031360 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wolfenden L, Grimshaw J, Williams CM, Yoong SL. Time to consider sharing data extracted from trials included in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:185. 10.1186/s13643-016-0361-y - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alston JM, Rick JA. A beginner's guide to conducting reproducible research. Bull Ecol Soc Am. 2021;102:e01801. 10.1002/bes2.1801 - DOI
    1. McKiernan EC, Bourne PE, Brown CT, et al. How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife. 2016;5:e16800. 10.7554/eLife.16800 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. National Institutes of Health . NOT‐OD‐21‐013: Final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-21-013.html

LinkOut - more resources