Univ. Lille, UFR3S - Ingénierie et Management de la Santé, 59000 Lille, France.
Fédération régionale de recherche en psychiatrie et santé mentale (F2RSM Psy), Hauts-de-France, Saint-André-Lez-Lille, France.
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2024 Aug 22;316:388-392. doi: 10.3233/SHTI240429.
Intensive care units (ICUs) provide care for critical patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality, and require continuous monitoring of clinical, biological and, imaging parameters. Collaborative ventures have enabled the emergence of large open access databases for the secondary use of Electronic Health Records (EHRs). The objective of this work was to evaluate the availability of scripts and datasets in publications based on ICU open-access databases. We included 910 original articles based on four ICU open-access databases (Amsterdam University Medical Centers Database, eICU Collaborative Research Database, High time resolution ICU dataset, and Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care). The majority of the studies did not provide their data management scripts (n=839, 92.9%), neither the analysis script (n=843, 93.4%) in the article. Attempts to contact the 845 corresponding authors in question resulted in 89.11% (n=753) of our e-mail requests going unanswered over a two-month period. We received 51 automated messages (55.43%) indicating that emails have not been delivered, while 6 messages (6.52%) redirected to alternative email addresses. Only 20 corresponding authors (18.18%) answered, finally providing the requested materials. Despite scientific journals recommendations to share materials, our study unveils the absence of crucial components for the replication of studies by other research teams.
重症监护病房 (ICU) 为患有高发病率和死亡率风险的重症患者提供护理,需要持续监测临床、生物学和影像学参数。合作项目使人们能够创建大型开放访问数据库,以二次利用电子健康记录 (EHR)。这项工作的目的是评估基于 ICU 开放访问数据库的出版物中脚本和数据集的可用性。我们纳入了基于四个 ICU 开放访问数据库(阿姆斯特丹大学医学中心数据库、eICU 合作研究数据库、高时间分辨率 ICU 数据集和重症监护医疗信息集市)的 910 篇原始文章。大多数研究没有提供其数据管理脚本(n=839,92.9%),也没有在文章中提供分析脚本(n=843,93.4%)。试图联系 845 名相关作者,在两个月的时间里,我们发出的 89.11%(n=753)的电子邮件请求没有得到回复。我们收到了 51 条自动回复消息(55.43%),表明电子邮件未送达,而 6 条消息(6.52%)被重定向到其他电子邮件地址。只有 20 名相应的作者(18.18%)回复了,最终提供了所需的材料。尽管科学期刊建议共享材料,但我们的研究揭示了缺乏其他研究团队复制研究所需的关键组件。