ArticleTrials2010
Preparing raw clinical data for publication: guidance for journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers.
Article in Trials, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed.
- Weight gain leads to greater adverse metabolic responses in South Asian compared with white European men: the GlasVEGAS study.Nature metabolism · 2024Trial
- Trial
- The International Stroke Trial database.Trials · 2011Trial
- HDL protein composition differs between young white European and South Asian men before and after weight gain.Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2025Article
- Conservative treatment using blood flow restriction and brace in individuals with complete anterior cruciate ligament rupture: protocol for a randomised clinical trial.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Introducing extended consultations for patients with severe mental illness in general practice: Results from the SOFIA feasibility study.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Ethical and Information Governance Considerations for Promoting Digital Social Interventions in Primary Care.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Current recommendations/practices for anonymising data from clinical trials in order to make it available for sharing: A scoping review.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022Article
- Writing up your clinical trial report for a scientific journal: the REPORT trial guide for effective and transparent research reporting without spin.British journal of sports medicine · 2022Review
- PRIME-IPD SERIES Part 1. The PRIME-IPD tool promoted verification and standardization of study datasets retrieved for IPD meta-analysis.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Artificial intelligence extension of the OSCAR-IB criteria.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2021Review
- A dataset of daily ambulatory psychological and physiological recording for emotion research.Scientific data · 2021Article
- Advancing trauma care through social media.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2021Article
- Article
- Use and Understanding of Anonymization and De-Identification in the Biomedical Literature: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Independent discussion sections for improving inferential reproducibility in published research.British journal of anaesthesia · 2019Article
- Evaluation of repositories for sharing individual-participant data from clinical studies.Trials · 2019Review
- Understanding health behaviour in pregnancy and infant feeding intentions in low-income women from the UK through qualitative visual methods and application to the COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour) model.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Article
- Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2016Article
- Dependence to legally prescribed opioid analgesics in a university hospital in Medellin-Colombia: an observational study.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2016Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recognition of the benefits of transparent reporting, many peer-reviewed journals require that their authors be prepared to share their raw, unprocessed data with other scientists and/or state the availability of raw data in published articles. But little information on how data should be prepared for publication - or sharing - has emerged. In clinical research patient privacy and consent for use of personal health information are key considerations, but agreed-upon definitions of what constitutes anonymised patient information do not appear to have been established. We aim to address this issue by providing practical guidance for those involved in the publication process, by proposing a minimum standard for de-identifying datasets for the purposes of publication in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal, or sharing with other researchers. Basic advice on file preparation is provided along with procedural guidance on prospective and retrospective publication of raw data, with an emphasis on randomised controlled trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.