Data sharing practices in randomized trials of addiction interventions

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: Transparent, open scientific research practices aim to improve the validity and reproducibility of research findings. A key component of open science is the public sharing of data and metadata that constitute the basis for research findings. Methods: We conducted a 6 year cross-sectional investigation of the rates and methods of data sharing in 15 high-impact addiction journals that publish clinical trials. We extracted trial characteristics and whether the trial data were shared publicly in any form. We conducted a sensitivity analysis of only trials with public funding sources. Results: In the included journals, zero (0/394, 0.0%) RCTs shared their data publicly. The large majority (315/394, 79.9%) of included trials received funding from public sources. Eight journals had data sharing policies and published 299 of the included trials (75.9%). Conclusion: Our finding has significant implications for the addiction research community. These implications are broad, ranging from possibly slowed scientific advancement to noncompliance with obligations to the public whose tax dollars funded a large majority of the included RCTs. To improve the rates of data sharing, we recommend studying incentive systems, while simultaneously working to cultivate a data sharing system that emphasizes scientific, rather than author, accuracy.

Original languageEnglish
Article number106193
JournalAddictive Behaviors
Volume102
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2020

Fingerprint

Information Dissemination
Research
Taxation
Metadata
Sensitivity analysis
Taxes
Information Systems
Reproducibility of Results
Motivation
Clinical Trials

Keywords

  • Data sharing
  • Randomized controlled trials
  • Research methodology

Cite this

@article{5eadf06e9b6a47b4aea74d3afccbe166,
title = "Data sharing practices in randomized trials of addiction interventions",
abstract = "Introduction: Transparent, open scientific research practices aim to improve the validity and reproducibility of research findings. A key component of open science is the public sharing of data and metadata that constitute the basis for research findings. Methods: We conducted a 6 year cross-sectional investigation of the rates and methods of data sharing in 15 high-impact addiction journals that publish clinical trials. We extracted trial characteristics and whether the trial data were shared publicly in any form. We conducted a sensitivity analysis of only trials with public funding sources. Results: In the included journals, zero (0/394, 0.0{\%}) RCTs shared their data publicly. The large majority (315/394, 79.9{\%}) of included trials received funding from public sources. Eight journals had data sharing policies and published 299 of the included trials (75.9{\%}). Conclusion: Our finding has significant implications for the addiction research community. These implications are broad, ranging from possibly slowed scientific advancement to noncompliance with obligations to the public whose tax dollars funded a large majority of the included RCTs. To improve the rates of data sharing, we recommend studying incentive systems, while simultaneously working to cultivate a data sharing system that emphasizes scientific, rather than author, accuracy.",
keywords = "Data sharing, Randomized controlled trials, Research methodology",
author = "Matt Vassar and Sam Jellison and Hannah Wendelbo and Cole Wayant",
year = "2020",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106193",
language = "English",
volume = "102",
journal = "Addictive Behaviors",
issn = "0306-4603",
publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",

}

Data sharing practices in randomized trials of addiction interventions. / Vassar, Matt; Jellison, Sam; Wendelbo, Hannah; Wayant, Cole.

In: Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 102, 106193, 03.2020.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Data sharing practices in randomized trials of addiction interventions

AU - Vassar, Matt

AU - Jellison, Sam

AU - Wendelbo, Hannah

AU - Wayant, Cole

PY - 2020/3

Y1 - 2020/3

N2 - Introduction: Transparent, open scientific research practices aim to improve the validity and reproducibility of research findings. A key component of open science is the public sharing of data and metadata that constitute the basis for research findings. Methods: We conducted a 6 year cross-sectional investigation of the rates and methods of data sharing in 15 high-impact addiction journals that publish clinical trials. We extracted trial characteristics and whether the trial data were shared publicly in any form. We conducted a sensitivity analysis of only trials with public funding sources. Results: In the included journals, zero (0/394, 0.0%) RCTs shared their data publicly. The large majority (315/394, 79.9%) of included trials received funding from public sources. Eight journals had data sharing policies and published 299 of the included trials (75.9%). Conclusion: Our finding has significant implications for the addiction research community. These implications are broad, ranging from possibly slowed scientific advancement to noncompliance with obligations to the public whose tax dollars funded a large majority of the included RCTs. To improve the rates of data sharing, we recommend studying incentive systems, while simultaneously working to cultivate a data sharing system that emphasizes scientific, rather than author, accuracy.

AB - Introduction: Transparent, open scientific research practices aim to improve the validity and reproducibility of research findings. A key component of open science is the public sharing of data and metadata that constitute the basis for research findings. Methods: We conducted a 6 year cross-sectional investigation of the rates and methods of data sharing in 15 high-impact addiction journals that publish clinical trials. We extracted trial characteristics and whether the trial data were shared publicly in any form. We conducted a sensitivity analysis of only trials with public funding sources. Results: In the included journals, zero (0/394, 0.0%) RCTs shared their data publicly. The large majority (315/394, 79.9%) of included trials received funding from public sources. Eight journals had data sharing policies and published 299 of the included trials (75.9%). Conclusion: Our finding has significant implications for the addiction research community. These implications are broad, ranging from possibly slowed scientific advancement to noncompliance with obligations to the public whose tax dollars funded a large majority of the included RCTs. To improve the rates of data sharing, we recommend studying incentive systems, while simultaneously working to cultivate a data sharing system that emphasizes scientific, rather than author, accuracy.

KW - Data sharing

KW - Randomized controlled trials

KW - Research methodology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075278779&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106193

DO - 10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106193

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85075278779

VL - 102

JO - Addictive Behaviors

JF - Addictive Behaviors

SN - 0306-4603

M1 - 106193

ER -