Systematic reviews and meta-analyses form the backbone of modern clinical practice, yet their integrity is increasingly compromised by researchers’ inability to access raw datasets and analytical code from original studies. A policy analysis published in PLOS Medicine reveals that institutional barriers and researcher discretion prevent evidence synthesizers from verifying underlying data, forcing them to rely on incomplete summary statistics and unverifiable assumptions.
When critical datasets remain locked away, the resulting distortions can mislead clinicians and policymakers about treatment efficacy, with direct consequences for patient safety and healthcare spending. Despite widespread adoption of data-sharing policies across academic and clinical institutions, compliance remains low and enforcement mechanisms are weak. Experts now emphasize that voluntary policies have failed—enforceable data-sharing mechanisms embedded within editorial workflows are essential to restore confidence in the evidence base underpinning clinical practice.
Read the full article on GMJ Newsroom.
Was this article helpful?
