Abstract
Background In 2024, the BMJ updated its data-sharing policy for clinical trials, requiring open deposit of deidentified individual participant data (IPD) before publication. We considered whether data-sharing increased after introduction of the new policy, and compared rates of data-sharing in 2025 with those of other leading medical journals.
Method All data-sharing statements were downloaded from BMJ trials published in 2023 (submitted pre-updated policy) and 2025 (submitted post-updated policy). Data for 2025 were gathered for trials in five comparison medical journals that had less stringent data-sharing requirements. Data-sharing statements were coded to specify whether IPD were immediately available, and if not, why. We did not check quality of IPD or reproducibility of results.
Results Openly available IPD for BMJ trials increased from 0/32 in 2023 to 19/33 (58%) after the updated policy; seven articles gave repository links that did not yield any data. In comparison journals, most authors provided data-sharing statements, but rates of open IPD varied from 0% to 5.6%.
Conclusions There was a substantial increase in open sharing of IPD after introduction of the new BMJ policy compared to a prior period, and compared to other journals in 2025.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Some minor changes made to tables to correct with updated information. Title modified to clarify the method. We note that we did not check quality of IPD or reproducibility of results. We shortened the Introduction, without removing the context of the study. Limitations notes that the study was not registered. In a new supplementary Table (supplementary table 1) we looked at the following in relation to whether or not data were openly available: Sponsorship: We have added information about whether trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Sample size: We report on median and range for sample sizes of articles. We have added the following text to the Methods: "In response to reviewer suggestions, we conducted a supplementary analysis on additional information as follows: a) The total sample size for each study. This information was usually taken from the Abstract (now included in our main data workbook), but the full text was consulted for cases where it was missing from the Abstract. b) The sponsor of the study. To obtain this information, we first identified the trial registry from the PubMed entry for each study (or from the original text in a few cases where it was missing), and then extracted information about the study Sponsor from the registries. Sponsors were categorised as either industry or non-industry. c) For studies with a link to an online repository for IPD, the F-UJI data assessment tool (Devaraju & Huber, 2025) was used to evaluate adherence to FAIR principles. d) For studies with a commercial sponsor that specified a data-sharing platform for data requests, we searched the data-sharing platform for the trial registry number to establish whether the data had been deposited." We moved the selected data-sharing comments to the Results. We have strengthened our discussion of the need for more action towards the end of the discussion. We have made aims more specific: 1. How often clinical trial IPD are shared in other major medical journals that ask authors to provide data-sharing statements? 2. Whether mandating openly accessible IPD in the BMJ was associated with an increase in trials providing IPD? 3.Where IPD are not available, what conditions do authors specify to allow access? For those articles with a link to a repository, we used the F-UJI Automated FAIR Data Assessment Tool to evaluate adherence to FAIR principles, and we now report those results ( https://www.f-uji.net/index.php)
Data Availability
The data and code used to create Table 2 are deposited at Figshare, DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.32270577.
