Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22112900›Full record

ArticleTrials2011

Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it.

Peter C Gøtzsche

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A call for open science in forensics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Clinical Trial Data Transparency in the EU: Is the New Clinical Trials Regulation a Game-Changer?IIC; international review of industrial property and copyright law · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Peter C GøtzscheNordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. pcg@cochrane.dk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

International calls for registering all trials involving humans and for sharing the results, and sometimes also the raw data and the trial protocols, have increased in recent years. Such calls have come, for example, from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Health Organization (WHO), the US National Institutes of Heath, the US Congress, the European Commission, the European ombudsman, journal editors, The Cochrane Collaboration, and several funders, for example the UK Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation. Calls for data sharing have mostly been restricted to publicly-funded research, but I argue that the distinction between publicly-funded and industry-funded research is an artificial and irrelevant one, as the interests of the patients must override commercial interests. I also argue why it is a moral imperative to render all results from all trials involving humans, also healthy volunteers, publicly available. Respect for trial participants who often run a personal and unknown risk by participating in trials requires that they--and therefore also the society at large that they represent--be seen as the ultimate owners of trial data. Data sharing would lead to tremendous benefits for patients, progress in science, and rational use of healthcare resources based on evidence we can trust. The harmful consequences are minor compared to the benefits. It has been amply documented that the current situation, with selective reporting of favorable research and biased data analyses being the norm rather than the exception, is harmful to patients and has led to the death of tens of thousands of patients that could have been avoided. National and supranational legislation is needed to make data sharing happen as guidelines and other voluntary agreements do not work. I propose the contents of such legislation and of appropriate sanctions to hold accountable those who refuse to share their data.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicInformation DisseminationData CollectionDrug and Narcotic ControlDrug IndustryHumansInfluenza, HumanOseltamivirOseltamivir

Identifiers

PMID22112900
PMCPMC3264537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.