Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
670
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
670 results for “review study”
A Study to Explore Treatment Patterns, Treatment Outcomes, Healthcare Resource Utilization in Adult Participants With Myelofibrosis Through Chart Review
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05444972. IPD Sharing: UNDECIDED. Countries: 14. Publications: 1.
Food Aid Quality Review: Feasibility and Acceptability Study of Corn Soy Blend and Fortified Vegetable Oil in Malawi
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01873196. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
A systematic review of long-term avian studies on phenological changes of birds and their food
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Does the implementation of a novel intensive care discharge risk score and nurse-led inpatient review tool improve outcome? A prospective cohort study in two intensive care units in the UK
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Global patterns and gaps in the study of terrestrial birds and mammals’ use of freshwater sources: A mapping review
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Systematic review of marine environmental DNA metabarcoding studies: Toward best practices for data usability and accessibility
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Reporting guidelines for community-based participatory research (CBPR) did not improve the reporting quality of published studies: a systematic review of studies on smoking cessation
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: X-ray computed tomography and its potential in ecological research: a review of studies and optimization of specimen preparation
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Experiences with Global Trigger Tool reviews in five Danish hospitals – an implementation study
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
A systematic review of global road ecology camera trap studies that monitored animals’ use of wildlife crossings in road-fragmented landscapes
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
"MiRoR13-P2 Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study"
<p>This dataset is related to the publication "Journal editors' perspectives on roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study"</p>
Replication Package for the paper: "Behind the Intents: An In-depth Empirical Study on Software Refactoring in Modern Code Review"
<p>This is the replication package for the paper: "Behind the Intents: An In-depth Empirical Study on Software Refactoring in Modern Code Review", published at the 17th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR ’20). </p> <p> </p> <p>It contains all the preliminary and final results of our empirical methodology. We highlight the manual classification of developers' intents behind code changes with refactoring operations. This might be used for further studies on developers' motivations when performing refactoring. </p> <p> </p> <p>Feel free to use any part of this replication package in your study, please cite as:</p> <p>Matheus Paixão, Anderson Uchôa, Ana Carla Bibiano, Daniel Oliveira, Alessandro Garcia, Jens Krinke, and Emilio Arvonio. 2020. Behind the In-tents: An In-depth Empirical Study on Software Refactoring in Modern Code Review. In 17th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR ’20), October 5–6, 2020, Seoul, Republic of Korea. ACM, New York, NY,USA, 11 pages.</p>
A review of response rates over time in registry-based studies using patient-reported outcome measures
<p class="Brdtekst1"><b>Objectives</b>: Gain an overview of expected response rates (RRs) to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical quality registry-based studies and long-term cohorts in order to better evaluate the validity of registries and registry-based studies. Examine the trends of RRs over time and how they vary with study type, questionnaire format, and the use of reminders.</p> <p class="Brdtekst1"><b>Design</b>: Literature review with systematic search.</p> <p class="Brdtekst1"><b>Data</b> <b>sources</b>: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, kvalitetsregistre.no, kvalitetsregister.se, and sundhed.dk.</p> <p class="Brdtekst1"><b>Eligibility criteria</b>: Articles in all areas of medical research using registry-based data or cohort design with at least two follow-up time-points collecting PROMs and reporting RRs. Annual reports of registries including PROMs that report RRs for at least two time-points.</p> <p class="Brdtekst1"><b>Primary outcome measure</b>: Response rates to PROMs.</p> <p class="Brdtekst1"><b>Results</b>: A total of 10 articles, 12 registry reports, and 6 registry articles were included in the review. The overall RR at baseline was 75% ±22.1 but decreased over time. Cohort studies had a markedly better RR (baseline 97% ±4.7) compared to registry-based data at all time points (baseline 72% ±21.8). For questionnaire formats, paper had the highest RR at 86% ±19.4, a mix of electronic and paper had the second highest at 71% ±15.1, and the electronic-only format had a substantially lower RR at 42% ±8.7. Sending one reminder (82% ±16.5) or more than one reminder (76% ±20.9) to non-responders resulted in a higher RR than sending no reminders (39% ±6.7).</p> <p class="Brdtekst1"><b>Conclusions</b>: The large variation and downward trend of RRs to PROMs in cohort and registry-based studies are of concern and should be assessed and addressed when using registry data in both research and clinical practice.</p>
Data used for "Studying human-nature relationships through a network lens: A systematic review"
<p>This is the data set used in the systematic literature review presented in Kluger et al. (<em>accepted for publicatio</em>n) Studying human-nature relationships through a network lens: A systematic review. <em>People and Nature</em>.</p> <p>The sheet "Full_analysis" includes all papers (n=138) identified - and classified relevant - through the literature search in the webofknowledge data base. For being classified as relevant, the study had to apply a network analytical approach and deal with human-nature relationships.</p> <p>For further details on the review process and decision criteria, please see the method section of the main manuscript.</p>
List of studies on Covid-19 identified in MedRxiv and excluded from our systematic review
<p>In the course of our MedRxiv searches we identified and screened the title and abstract of a number of studies on Covid-19 that were finally excluded from our systematic review. </p> <p>This file will be updated regularly.</p>
List of studies on Covid-19 identified in PubMed and excluded from our systematic review
<p>In the course of our PubMed searches we identified and screened the title and abstract of a number of studies on Covid-19 that were finally excluded from our systematic review. </p> <p>This file will be updated regularly.</p>
Replication Package for the paper: "How Does Modern Code Review Impact Software Design Degradation? An In-depth Empirical Study"
<p>This is the replication package for the paper: "How Does Modern Code Review Impact Software Design Degradation? An In-depth Empirical Study", published at the 36th International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME' 20).</p> <p> </p> <p>It contains all the preliminary and final results of our empirical methodology. We highlight the manual classification of design-related and design-unrelated reviews, according to the developers’ intent of improving the structural design of the system. This might be used for further studies on the impact of design discussions on the structural quality of design.</p> <p> </p> <p>Feel free to use any part of this replication package in your study, please cite as:</p> <p>Anderson Uchôa, Caio Barbosa, Willian Oizumi, Publio Blenílio, Rafael Lima, Alessandro Garcia, and Carla Bezerra. How Does Modern Code Review Impact Software Design Degradation? An In-depth Empirical Study. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), Adelaide, Australia, September 2020.</p>
The influence of a priori grouping on inference of genetic clusters: simulation study and literature review of the DAPC method
Inference of genetic clusters is a key aim of population genetics, sparking development of numerous analytical methods. Within these, there is a conceptual divide between finding de novo structure versus assessment of a priori groups. Recently developed, Discriminant Analysis of Principal Components (DAPC), combines discriminant analysis (DA) with principal component (PC) analysis. When applying DAPC, the groups used in the DA (specified a priori or described de novo) need to be carefully assessed. While DAPC has rapidly become a core technique, the sensitivity of the method to misspecification of groups and how it is being empirically applied, are unknown. To address this, we conducted a simulation study examining the influence of a priori versus de novo group designations, and a literature review of how DAPC is being applied. We found that with a priori groupings, distance between genetic clusters reflected underlying FST. However, when migration rates were high and groups were described de novo there was considerable inaccuracy, both in terms of the number of genetic clusters suggested and placement of individuals into those clusters. Nearly all (90.1%) of 224 studies surveyed used DAPC to find de novo clusters, and for the majority (62.5%) the stated goal matched the results. However, most studies (52.3%) omit key run parameters, preventing repeatability and transparency. Therefore, we present recommendations for standard reporting of parameters used in DAPC analyses. The influence of groupings in genetic clustering is not unique to DAPC, and researchers should consider their goal and which methods will be most appropriate.
Replication Package for the Paper: "Code Smells Detection via Code Review: An Empirical Study"
<p>This repository contains the data and results from the paper "Code Smells Detection via Code Review: An Empirical Study" submitted to ESEM 2020.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>1. data folder</strong></p> <p>The data folder contains the retrieved 269 reviews that discuss code smells. Each review includes four parts: Code Change URL, Code Smell Term, Code Smell Discussion, and Source Code URL.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>2. scripts floder</strong></p> <p>The scripts folder contains the Python script that was used to search for code smell terms and the list of code smell terms.</p> <ul> <li><em>smell-term/general_smell_terms.txt</em> contains general code smell terms, such as "code smell".</li> <li><em>smell-term/specific_smell_terms.txt</em> contains specific code smell terms, such as "dead code".</li> <li><em>smell-term/misspelling_terms_of_smell.txt</em> contains the misspelling terms of 'smell', such as "ssell".</li> <li><em>get_changes.py</em> is used for getting code changes from OpenStack.</li> <li><em>get_comments.py</em> is used for getting review comments for each code change.</li> <li><em>smell_search.py</em> is used for searching review comments that contain code smell terms.</li> </ul> <p> </p> <p><strong>3. project folder</strong></p> <p>The project folder contains the MAXQDA project files. The files can be opened by MAXQDA 12 or higher versions, which are available at https://www.maxqda.com/ for download. You may also use the free 14-day trial version of MAXQDA 2018, which is available at https://www.maxqda.com/trial for download.</p> <ul> <li><em>Data Labeling & Encoding for RQ2.mx12</em> is the results of data labeling and encoding for RQ2, which were analyzed by the MAXQDA tool.</li> <li><em>Data Labeling & Encoding for RQ3.mx12</em> is the results of data labeling and encoding for RQ3, which were analyzed by the MAXQDA tool.</li> </ul>
Data from: Characteristics of patients included and enrolled in studies on the prognostic value of serum biomarkers for prediction of post-concussion symptoms following a mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review
Objective: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) has been insufficiently researched and its definition remains elusive. Investigators are confronted by heterogeneity in patients, mechanism of injury and outcomes. Findings are thus often limited in generalizability and clinical application. Serum protein biomarkers are increasingly assessed to enhance prognostication of outcomes but their translation into clinical practice has yet to be achieved. A systematic review was performed to describe the adult populations included and enrolled in studies that evaluated the prognostic value of protein biomarkers to predict post-concussion symptoms following a mTBI. Data sources: Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycBITE, and PsycINFO up to October 2016. Data selection and extraction: Two reviewers independently screened for potentially eligible studies, extracted data and assessed the overall quality of evidence by outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results: A total of 23,298 citations were obtained from which 166 manuscripts were reviewed. Thirty-six cohort studies (2,812 patients) having enrolled between 7 and 311 patients (median 89) fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Most studies excluded patients based on advanced age (n=10 (28%)), neurologic disorders (n=20 (56%)), psychiatric disorders (n=17 (47%)), substance abuse disorders (n=13 (36%)) or previous TBI (n=10 (28%)). Twenty-one studies (58%) used at least two of these exclusion criteria. The pooled mean age of included patients was 39.3 (SD 4.6) years old (34 studies). The criteria used to define a mTBI were inconsistent. The most frequently reported outcome was post-concussion syndrome (PCS) using the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (n=18 (50%)) with follow-ups ranging from 7 days to 5 years after the mTBI. Conclusions: Most studies have recruited samples that are not representative and generalizable to the mTBI population. These exclusion criteria limit the potential use and translation of promising serum protein biomarkers to predict post-concussion symptoms.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.