ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2012
Sharing of clinical trial data among trialists: a cross sectional survey.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
52 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- A systematic literature review of researchers' and healthcare professionals' attitudes towards the secondary use and sharing of health administrative and clinical trial data.Systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Exploring changes over time and characteristics associated with data retrieval across individual participant data meta-analyses: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Pooled it
- Best Practices for Ethical Sharing of Individual-Level Health Research Data From Low- and Middle-Income Settings.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2015Pooled it
- Journal data-sharing policies and its impact in publications: A cross-sectional study protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- Medical researchers' perception of sharing of metadata from case report forms.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- Data sharing implementation in top 10 ophthalmology journals in 2021.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Systematic reviewers' perspectives on sharing review data, analytic code, and other materials: A survey.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
- What constitutes equitable data sharing in global health research? A scoping review of the literature on low-income and middle-income country stakeholders' perspectives.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Identifying effect modifiers of CAR-T cell therapeutic efficacy: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis protocol.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- How do we measure the costs, benefits, and harms of sharing data from biomedical studies? A protocol for a scoping review.Open research Europe · 2023Article
- How often do cancer researchers make their data and code available and what factors are associated with sharing?BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Data capture and sharing in the COVID-19 pandemic: a cause for concern.The Lancet. Digital health · 2022Review
- 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
- Data-sharing and re-analysis for main studies assessed by the European Medicines Agency-a cross-sectional study on European Public Assessment Reports.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Practical Considerations and Challenges When Conducting an Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-Analysis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Public Attitudes to Digital Health Research Repositories: Cross-sectional International Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- A brief introduction of meta-analyses in clinical practice and research.The journal of gene medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate clinical trialists' opinions and experiences of sharing of clinical trial data with investigators who are not directly collaborating with the research team. DESIGN AND
settingCross sectional, web based survey.
participantsClinical trialists who were corresponding authors of clinical trials published in 2010 or 2011 in one of six general medical journals with the highest impact factor in 2011.
main outcome measuresSupport for and prevalence of data sharing through data repositories and in response to individual requests, concerns with data sharing through repositories, and reasons for granting or denying requests.
resultsOf 683 potential respondents, 317 completed the survey (response rate 46%). In principle, 236 (74%) thought that sharing de-identified data through data repositories should be required, and 229 (72%) thought that investigators should be required to share de-identified data in response to individual requests. In practice, only 56 (18%) indicated that they were required by the trial funder to deposit the trial data in a repository; of these 32 (57%) had done so. In all, 149 respondents (47%) had received an individual request to share their clinical trial data; of these, 115 (77%) had granted and 56 (38%) had denied at least one request. Respondents' most common concerns about data sharing were related to appropriate data use, investigator or funder interests, and protection of research subjects.
conclusionsWe found strong support for sharing clinical trial data among corresponding authors of recently published trials in high impact general medical journals who responded to our survey, including a willingness to share data, although several practical concerns were identified.
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.