Brody Dennis

BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic surgery is a critical field, impacting global health-care expenditure and patient outcomes. Despite substantial research funding, issues of transparency and reproducibility persist, undermining the credibility of published in-print findings. Data-sharing initiatives aim to address these challenges by promoting accessibility and enhancing research reliability. We aimed to assess the landscape of data-sharing practices within the field of orthopaedic surgery, focusing on the top orthopaedic journals from 2020 to 2023. METHODS: Original research articles from 10 of the top orthopaedic journals were screened and analyzed for data-sharing statements (DSSs). Furthermore, we identified variables that were influential on the inclusion of DSSs in orthopaedic clinical studies, and thematically analyzed DSS content to identify prevalent themes. Lastly, corresponding authors were contacted to assess their willingness to share their data. RESULTS: Of the 1,084 reviewed articles, only 14% included a DSS. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery demonstrated the highest proportion of articles with a DSS. Over time, clinical trials exhibited an increasing trend in DSS adoption, contrasting with consistently low rates among cohort studies. Thematic analysis identified the gatekeeper role and conditional data availability as predominant themes in orthopaedic DSSs. Of the 115 emails sent to corresponding authors, only 22 (19.1%) yielded responses, and of those who responded, only 12 (54.5%) expressed a willingness to share their data. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore a substantial disparity in data-sharing practices across orthopaedic journals, highlighting the need for standardization and mandates for DSSs. Adopting the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines can enhance accountability and foster a culture of open science within the field. By addressing these shortcomings, orthopaedic journals can improve research reproducibility and advance scientific knowledge effectively.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of mortality, with significant investments in research to improve treatment and prevention. Data sharing enhances transparency, reproducibility, and collaboration, yet data sharing statement (DSS) inclusion remains inconsistent. This study evaluates DSS prevalence, content, and influencing factors in high-impact cardiology journals, examines journal policy influence, and assesses data sharing feasibility by contacting authors who indicated data availability. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted to assess DSS inclusion in top cardiology, selected general medicine, emergency medicine, and orthopaedic surgery journals. A systematic PubMed search identified clinical studies published from 2020 to 2023. Logistic regression models assessed factors associated with DSS inclusion, while thematic analysis categorized DSS content. Corresponding authors who indicated data availability upon request were contacted to evaluate follow-through. RESULTS: Among 2941 articles, 1004 (34.14%) included a DSS. Data sharing statement prevalence varied by discipline: cardiology (52%), general medicine (96%), emergency medicine (12%), and orthopedic surgery (14%). Policy enforcement drove DSS inclusion, with post-policy articles significantly more likely to contain a DSS. Funding status, study design, article access, and impact factor also influenced DSS presence. Thematic analysis identified conditional availability and gatekeeping as dominant DSS themes. Of authors who stated data were available upon request, only 31% ultimately provided access. CONCLUSIONS: Data sharing statement inclusion in cardiology research remains inconsistent, with journal policies playing a key role in increasing prevalence. However, real-world data-sharing practices often fall short of stated commitments. Addressing logistical and financial barriers will be essential to improving data availability in cardiology research.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the current state of data-sharing practices in gastroenterology literature, focusing on data-sharing statements (DSS) and identifying influential factors on DSS inclusion. BACKGROUND: High-quality, reproducible research is crucial in addressing the widespread prevalence of gastrointestinal diseases. Data-sharing practices enable researchers to access studies more easily, enhancing reproducibility. Our study aims to analyse the inclusion and influence of DSS in top gastroenterology journals. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to examine the use and contents of DSS in gastroenterology clinical trials. Using Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports, we selected five leading gastroenterology journals. Then, we searched MEDLINE (PubMed) for original research articles published between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023. In a double-blind, duplicate manner, data were extracted on DSS presence, funding source, study design and open-access status. We then conducted a thematic analysis of all DSS. Additionally, authors were contacted and given 14 days to respond or share data to investigate adherence to their DSS. RESULTS: has the lowest percentage of DSS (33/256; 12.9%). Impact factor is a significant indicator for DSS (estimate=0.138, p=0.01). Finally, 'conditional data availability' was the most common data theme in our study (225/303; 74.3%). Over half (153/284; 53.9%) of the authors contacted did not respond to our request for sharing data. CONCLUSION: Our findings reveal significant variability in DSS inclusion and adherence among top gastroenterology journals. Journals with mandatory data-sharing policies demonstrated higher compliance, while open-access status and journal impact factor were positively associated with data-sharing practices. However, a notable gap remains in authors' follow-through on stated data-sharing commitments.