Search

To identify the similarities and differences in data-sharing policies for clinical trial data that are endorsed by biomedical journals, funding agencies, and other professional organizations. Additionally, to determine the beliefs, and opinions regarding data-sharing policies for clinical trials discussed in articles published in biomedical journals.Two searches were conducted, a bibliographic search for published articles that present beliefs, opinions, similarities, and differences regarding policies governing the sharing of clinical trial data. The second search analyzed the gray literature (non-peer-reviewed publications) to identify important data-sharing policies in selected biomedical journals, foundations, funding agencies, and other professional organizations.A total of 471 articles were included after database search and screening, with 45 from the bibliographic search and 426 from the gray literature search. A total of 424 data-sharing policies were included. Fourteen of the 45 published articles from the bibliographic search (31.1%) discussed only advantages specific to data-sharing policies, 27 (27/45; 60%) discussed both advantages and disadvantages, and 4 (4/45; 8.9%) discussed only disadvantages specific. A total of 216 journals (of 270; 80%) specified a data-sharing policy provided by the journal itself. One hundred industry data-sharing policies were included, and 32 (32%) referenced a data-sharing policy on their website. One hundred and thirty-six (42%) organizations (of 327) specified a data-sharing policy.We found many similarities listed as advantages to data-sharing and fewer disadvantages were discussed within the literature. Additionally, we found a wide variety of commonalities and differences-such as the lack of standardization between policies, and inadequately addressed details regarding the accessibility of research data-that exist in data-sharing policies endorsed by biomedical journals, funding agencies, and other professional organizations. Our study may not include information on all data sharing policies and our data is limited to the entities' descriptions of each policy.

IntroductionCardiac arrest remains a common and devastating cause of death and disability worldwide. While targeted temperature management has become standard of care to improve functional neurologic outcome, few pharmacologic interventions have shown similar promise.Methods/analysisThis systematic review will focus on prospective human studies from 2015 to 2020 available in PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE with a primary focus on impact on functional neurologic outcome. Prospective studies that include pharmacologic agents given during or after cardiac arrest will be included. Study selection will be in keeping with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. If sufficient data involving a given agent are available, a meta-analysis will be conducted and compared with current evidence for therapies recommended in international practice guidelines.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval will not be required as primary data will not be collected. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, conference presentation and lay press.PROSPERO registration numberInternational Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (CRD42021230216).