A critical analysis of data accessibility in systematic reviews reveals a stark disconnect between policy and practice. Despite widespread institutional data-sharing mandates, 92% of systematic reviews encounter institutional barriers to accessing underlying datasets, while researcher discretion prevents access in 85% of cases. Incomplete reporting and weak policy enforcement compound these obstacles, affecting the validity of clinical guidelines that guide treatment decisions for millions of patients.
This transparency gap introduces significant methodological risks. When evidence synthesizers cannot verify original data, they must resort to imputation techniques and untested assumptions that can distort effect estimates and compromise clinical recommendations. The problem is not a lack of policies—institutions have adopted numerous data-sharing standards—but rather the near-complete absence of enforcement mechanisms and monitoring infrastructure. Healthcare leaders and journal editors now recognize that meaningful reform requires binding accountability measures, not voluntary compliance.
Read the full article on GMJ Newsroom.
Was this article helpful?
