Background

There is increasing interest to make primary data from published research publicly available. We aimed to assess the current status of making research data available in highly-cited journals across the scientific literature.

Methods and Results

We reviewed the first 10 original research papers of 2009 published in the 50 original research journals with the highest impact factor. For each journal we documented the policies related to public availability and sharing of data. Of the 50 journals, 44 (88%) had a statement in their instructions to authors related to public availability and sharing of data. However, there was wide variation in journal requirements, ranging from requiring the sharing of all primary data related to the research to just including a statement in the published manuscript that data can be available on request. Of the 500 assessed papers, 149 (30%) were not subject to any data availability policy. Of the remaining 351 papers that were covered by some data availability policy, 208 papers (59%) did not fully adhere to the data availability instructions of the journals they were published in, most commonly (73%) by not publicly depositing microarray data. The other 143 papers that adhered to the data availability instructions did so by publicly depositing only the specific data type as required, making a statement of willingness to share, or actually sharing all the primary data. Overall, only 47 papers (9%) deposited full primary raw data online. None of the 149 papers not subject to data availability policies made their full primary data publicly available.

Conclusion

A substantial proportion of original research papers published in high-impact journals are either not subject to any data availability policies, or do not adhere to the data availability instructions in their respective journals. This empiric evaluation highlights opportunities for improvement.

Aim:

To evaluate changes in management practices and its influence on short term hospital outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admitted during two different time periods, 2007 and 2004.

Methods and Results:

We studied AMI patients from two acute coronary syndrome registries carried out in Kuwait in 2007 and 2004. We included 1872 and 1197 patients from the 2007 and 2004 registries, respectively. When compared with 2004, patients from the 2007 registry had similar baseline clinical characteristics. In 2007 compared to 2004, during the in-hospital period, patients with AMI received significantly more statins (94% vs. 73%%, p<0.0001), Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (70% vs. 47%, p<0.001), and Clopidogrel (38% vs. 4%, p<0.001), while beta-blockers use dropped in 2007 compared to 2004 (63% vs. 68%, p=0.0066). The rates of in-hospital mortality and recurrent ischemia were significantly lower in the 2007 cohort compared with the 2004 cohort (for mortality 2.2% vs. 3.9%, P=0.0008, for recurrent ischemia 13.7% vs. 20.4%, P=0<0.0001).Higher utilization of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and statins were the main contributors to the improved in-hospital mortality and morbidity.

In Conclusion:

In the acute management of AMI, there was a significant increase in the use of statins, ACE inhibitors and Clopidogrel in 2007 compared to 2004. This was associated with a significant decrease in the in-hospital mortality and recurrent ischemia. Adherence to guidelines recommended therapies improved in-hospital outcomes.