Abstract
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: Of the 953 articles that met inclusion criteria, 400 (400/953; 42.0%) contained a DSS. Open-access articles had a higher likelihood of containing DSS (estimate=0·413; p<0.05). The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology has the highest percentage of DSS (159/194; 82.0%), while Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 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.