ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2016
UK publicly funded Clinical Trials Units supported a controlled access approach to share individual participant data but highlighted concerns.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Data resource profile: the virtual international care homes trials archive (VICHTA).International journal of population data science · 2023Review
- Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Article
- Access to data from clinical trials in the COVID-19 crisis: open, flexible, and time-sensitive.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Targeting the delivery of dietary plant bioactives to those who would benefit most: from science to practical applications.European journal of nutrition · 2019Review
- Evaluation of repositories for sharing individual-participant data from clinical studies.Trials · 2019Review
- A beginner's guide to data stewardship and data sharing.Spinal cord · 2019Review
- Overview and experience of the YODA Project with clinical trial data sharing after 5 years.Scientific data · 2018Article
- Reflections and aspirations: the journal after 5 years.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published inBMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Review
- Article
- Data sharing: A new editorial initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Implications for the editors' network.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2017Article
- Data Sharing: A New Editorial Initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Implications for the Editors´ Network.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2017Article
- Data Sharing: A New Editorial Initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Implications for the Editors' Network.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2017Article
- Data Sharing: a New Editorial Initiative from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Implications for the Editors' Network.Korean circulation journal · 2017Review
- Data sharing: A new editorial initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors : Implications for the Editors' Network.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2017Article
- Commentary: data sharing in South East Asia.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016Article
- Data sharing through an NIH central database repository: a cross-sectional survey of BioLINCC users.BMJ open · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEvaluate current data sharing activities of UK publicly funded Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and identify good practices and barriers. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingWeb-based survey of Directors of 45 UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered CTUs.
resultsTwenty-three (51%) CTUs responded: Five (22%) of these had an established data sharing policy and eight (35%) specifically requested consent to use patient data beyond the scope of the original trial. Fifteen (65%) CTUs had received requests for data, and seven (30%) had made external requests for data in the previous 12 months. CTUs supported the need for increased data sharing activities although concerns were raised about patient identification, misuse of data, and financial burden. Custodianship of clinical trial data and requirements for a CTU to align its policy to their parent institutes were also raised. No CTUs supported the use of an open access model for data sharing.
conclusionThere is support within the publicly funded UKCRC-registered CTUs for data sharing, but many perceived barriers remain. CTUs are currently using a variety of approaches and procedures for sharing data. This survey has informed further work, including development of guidance for publicly funded CTUs, to promote good practice and facilitate data sharing.
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.