Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26107811›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Biomedical Data Sharing and Reuse: Attitudes and Practices of Clinical and Scientific Research Staff.

Lisa M Federer, Ya-Ling Lu, Douglas J Joubert, Judith Welsh, Barbara Brandys

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Multicomponent Informed Consent with Marshallese Participants.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021
    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

5 authors.

Lisa M FedererNIH Library, Division of Library Services, Office of Research Services, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Ya-Ling LuNIH Library, Division of Library Services, Office of Research Services, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Douglas J JoubertNIH Library, Division of Library Services, Office of Research Services, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Judith WelshNIH Library, Division of Library Services, Office of Research Services, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Barbara BrandysNIH Library, Division of Library Services, Office of Research Services, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSignificant efforts are underway within the biomedical research community to encourage sharing and reuse of research data in order to enhance research reproducibility and enable scientific discovery. While some technological challenges do exist, many of the barriers to sharing and reuse are social in nature, arising from researchers' concerns about and attitudes toward sharing their data. In addition, clinical and basic science researchers face their own unique sets of challenges to sharing data within their communities. This study investigates these differences in experiences with and perceptions about sharing data, as well as barriers to sharing among clinical and basic science researchers.

methodsClinical and basic science researchers in the Intramural Research Program at the National Institutes of Health were surveyed about their attitudes toward and experiences with sharing and reusing research data. Of 190 respondents to the survey, the 135 respondents who identified themselves as clinical or basic science researchers were included in this analysis. Odds ratio and Fisher's exact tests were the primary methods to examine potential relationships between variables. Worst-case scenario sensitivity tests were conducted when necessary. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: While most respondents considered data sharing and reuse important to their work, they generally rated their expertise as low. Sharing data directly with other researchers was common, but most respondents did not have experience with uploading data to a repository. A number of significant differences exist between the attitudes and practices of clinical and basic science researchers, including their motivations for sharing, their reasons for not sharing, and the amount of work required to prepare their data.

conclusionsEven within the scope of biomedical research, addressing the unique concerns of diverse research communities is important to encouraging researchers to share and reuse data. Efforts at promoting data sharing and reuse should be aimed at solving not only technological problems, but also addressing researchers' concerns about sharing their data. Given the varied practices of individual researchers and research communities, standardizing data practices like data citation and repository upload could make sharing and reuse easier.

Indexed as

Access to InformationAttitudeCooperative BehaviorAlgorithmsBiomedical ResearchHumansNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)Odds RatioReproducibility of ResultsResearch PersonnelStudentsTechnologyUnited States

Identifiers

PMID26107811
PMCPMC4481309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.