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.
24
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
24 results for “Medical journals”
Perspectives on Medical Education Journal Data and Supplemental Files (2012 - 2019)
<p>This is the supplemental data, figures, and tables for <em>Joining the meta-research movement: A bibliometric case study of Perspectives on Medical Education</em>. </p> <p>For Figures 2-4 from the manuscript, to open the network maps, use both the network and map file for each figure in VoS viewer - https://www.vosviewer.com/</p>
Reliability of citations of medRxiv preprints in articles published on COVID-19 in the world leading medical journals
<p>Articles published on COVID in 2020 in the BMJ, The Lancet, the JAMA and the NEJM were manually screened to identify all articles citing at least one preprint from medRxiv. We searched PubMed, Google and Google Scholar to assess if the preprint had been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and when. Published articles were screened to assess if the title, data or conclusions were identical to the preprint version.</p>
Medical Education Journal Data and Supplemental Files (2000 - 2020)
<p>This is the supplemental data, figures, and tables for <em>The Voices of Medical Education Science: Describing the Landscape</em>. This also includes the author thesaurus and institution thesaurus with supporting read me files. </p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong> </p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Medical education has been described as a dynamic and growing field, driven in part by its unique body of scholarship. The voices of authors who publish medical education literature have a powerful impact on the discourses of the community. While there have been numerous studies looking at aspects of this literature, there has been no comprehensive view of recent publications.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of all articles published in 24 medical education journals published between 2000-2020 to identify article characteristics, with an emphasis on author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation. This study replicates and greatly expands on two previous investigations by examining all articles published in these core medical education journals. </p> <p>Results </p> <p>The journals published 37,263 articles with the most articles published in 2020 (n=3,957, 10.7%) and least in 2000 (n=711, 1.9%) representing a 456.5% increase. The articles were authored by 139,325 authors of which 62,708 were unique. Men were more prevalent across all authorship positions (n=62,828; 55.7%) than women (n=49,975; 44.3%). Authors listed 154 country affiliations with the United States (n=42,236, 40.4%), United Kingdom (n=12,967, 12.4%), and Canada (n=10,481, 10.0%) most represented. Ninety-three countries (60.4%) were low- or middle-income countries accounting for 9,684 (9.3%) author positions. Few articles were written by multinational teams (n=3,765; 16.2%). Authors listed affiliations with 4,372 unique institutions. Across all author positions, 48,189 authors (46.1%) were affiliated with institutions ranked globally as Top 200 institutions by the Times Higher Education ranking. </p> <p>Discussion </p> <p>There is a relative imbalance of author voices in medical education. If the field values a diversity of perspectives, there is considerable opportunity for improvement.</p>
Dataset for "Definition and rationale for placebo composition: Cross-sectional analysis of randomized trials and protocols published in high-impact medical journals"
<p>Contains our data extraction sheets</p>
Dataset for Spence et al., "Availability of study protocols for randomized trials published in high-impact medical journals: cross-sectional analysis" (CITATION)
<p>Contains our extraction sheets (as SAS data files), code to calculate the values in the tables in our manuscript, and a supplemental file with additional notes on methods used in our study.</p>
Quality of advertisements for prescription drugs in family practice medical journals published in Australia, Canada, and the United States with different regulatory controls: a cross-sectional study
<p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>OBJECTIVE: </b>To assess if different forms of regulation lead to differences in the quality of journal advertisements.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>DESIGN: </b>Cross-sectional study.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>PARTICIPANTS: </b>Thirty advertisements from family practice journals published from 2013-2015 were extracted for three countries with distinct regulatory pharmaceutical promotion systems: Australia, Canada, and the United States (US). </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: </b>Advertisements under each regulatory system were compared concerning three domains: information included in the advertisement, references to scientific evidence, and pictorial appeals and portrayals. An overall ranking for advertisement quality among countries was determined using the first two domains as the information assessed has been associated with more appropriate prescribing. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>RESULTS: </b>Advertisements varied significantly for number of claims with quantitative benefit (Australia: 0.0 (0.0-3.0); Canada: 0.0 (0.0-5.0); US: 1.0 (0.0-6.0); p=0.01); statistical method used in reporting benefit (RRR, ARR, and NNT) (Australia: 6.7%, n=2; Canada: 10.0%, n=3; US: 36.6%, n=11; p=0.02); mention of adverse effects, warnings, or contraindications (Australia: 13.3%, n=4; Canada: 23.3%, n=7; US: 53.3%, n=16; p=0.002); equal prominence between safety and benefit information (Australia: 25.0%, n=1; Canada: 28.6%, n=2; US: 75.0%, n=12; p=0.04); and methodologic quality of references score (Australia: 0.4150 (0.25-0.70); Canada: 0.25 (0.00-0.63); US: 0.25 (0.00-0.75); p<0.001). The US ranked first, Canada second, and Australia third for overall quality of journal advertisements. Significant differences for humor appeals (Australia: 3.3%, n=1; Canada: 13.3%, n=4; US: 26.7%, n=8; p=0.04), positive emotional appeals (Australia: 26.7%, n=8; Canada: 60.0%, n=18; US: 50.0%, n=15; p=0.03), social approval portrayals (Australia: 0.0%, n=0; Canada: 0.0%, n=0; US: 10.0%, n=3; p=0.04), and lifestyle or work portrayals (Australia: 43.3%, n=13; Canada: 50.0%, n=15; US: 76.7%, n=23; p=0.02) were found among countries.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><b>CONCLUSIONS:</b> <a name="_Hlk34742358">Different regulatory systems influence journal advertisement quality concerning all measured domains. </a>However, differences may also be attributed to other regulatory, legal, cultural, or health system factors unique to each country.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
Research integrity in instructions for authors in Japanese medical journals using ICMJE recommendations: A descriptive literature study
<p>The goals of this project were to compare research integrity content in Instructions for Authors in ICMJE member journals with those in the English- and Japanese-language journals of the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences (JAMS).</p> <p>Therefore, this dataset contents include the following three categories: 1) journals' background information, 2) description numbers of research integrity topics, and 3) journal numbers that required ICMJE description forms in ICMJE member journals, English- and Japanese-language journals.</p>
Medical Journals in Spanish
<p>Medical Journals in Spanish used to compute <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/6647060">Word embeddings for the Spanish clinical language</a></p>
Endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration across urological medical journals: a cross-sectional study
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Increasing Medical Student Well-being Through Gratitude Journaling
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03240705. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 4.
Community Members as Reviewers of Medical Journal Manuscripts
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03432143. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 16.
Data from: Evaluating adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ policy of mandatory, timely clinical trial registration
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Quality of advertisements for prescription drugs in family practice medical journals published in Australia, Canada, and the United States with different regulatory controls: a cross-sectional study
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Research integrity in instructions for authors in Japanese medical journals using ICMJE recommendations: A descriptive literature study
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in high impact medical journals
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study
Objective: To quantify data sharing policy compliance at the BMJ by analysing the rate of data sharing practices, and investigate attitudes and examine barriers towards data sharing. Design: Observational study. Setting: The BMJ research archive. Participants: 160 randomly sampled BMJ research articles, excluding meta-analysis and systematic reviews. Main outcome measures: Percentages of research articles that indicated the availability of their raw datasets in their data sharing statements and those that provided their datasets upon request. Results: Fifty out of 160 (31%) research articles indicated the availability of their datasets. Twelve used publicly available data and the remaining 38 were sent email requests to access their datasets. Only 1 publicly available dataset could be accessed and only 6 out of 38 shared their data via e-mail. So only 7/160 research articles shared their datasets, 4.4% (95% confidence interval: 1.8% to 8.8%). Conclusions: Despite the BMJ's strong data sharing policy, sharing rates are low. Possible explanations for low data sharing rates could be: the wording of the BMJ data sharing policy, which leaves room for individual interpretation and possible loopholes; that our email requests ended up in researchers spam folders; and, that researchers are not rewarded in the scientific community for sharing their data. It might be time for a more effective data sharing policy and better incentives for health and medical researchers to share their data.
Data from: Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review
Objectives: Published negative studies should have the same rigour of methodological quality as studies with positive findings. However, the methodological quality of negative versus positive studies is not known. The objective was to assess the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies published in Indian medical journals. Design: A systematic review (SR) was performed of all comparative studies published in Indian medical journals with a clinical science focus and impact factor >1 between 2011 and 2013. The methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. The results were considered positive if the primary outcome was statistically significant and negative otherwise. When the primary outcome was not specified, we used data on the first outcome reported in the history followed by the results section. Differences in various methodological quality domains between positive versus negative studies were assessed by Fisher's exact test. Results: Seven journals with 259 comparative studies were included in this SR. 24% (63/259) were RCTs, 24% (63/259) cohort studies, and 49% (128/259) case–control studies. 53% (137/259) of studies explicitly reported the primary outcome. Five studies did not report sufficient data to enable us to determine if results were positive or negative. Statistical significance was determined by p value in 78.3% (199/254), CI in 2.8% (7/254), both p value and CI in 11.8% (30/254), and only descriptive in 6.3% (16/254) of studies. The overall methodological quality was poor and no statistically significant differences between reporting of methodological quality were detected between studies with positive versus negative findings. Conclusions: There was no difference in the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies. However, the uneven reporting of positive versus negative studies (72% vs 28%) indicates a publication bias in Indian medical journals with an impact factor of >1.
Accompanying patients aged 65 or over: how companions' health literacy affects value co-creation during medical encounters. Journal of Aging and Health. 33 - 10, pp. 953 - 964. Sage Publishing, 2021.
<p>Data file</p>
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.