Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26297744›Full record

ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2015

Sharing Public Health Research Data: Toward the Development of Ethical Data-Sharing Practice in Low- and Middle-Income Settings.

Michael Parker, Susan Bull

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Biomedical Data Sharing Among Researchers: A Study from Jordan.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Effect of TB/HIV Integration on TB and HIV Indicators in Rural Ugandan Health Facilities.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2018
    Article
  17. Society and personal genome data.Human molecular genetics · 2018
    Review
  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

2 authors.

Michael ParkerUniversity of Oxford, UK Michael.parker@ethox.ox.ac.uk.
Susan BullUniversity of Oxford, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 096527
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is increasingly recognized that effective and appropriate data sharing requires the development of models of good data-sharing practice capable of taking seriously both the potential benefits to be gained and the importance of ensuring that the rights and interests of participants are respected and that risk of harms is minimized. Calls for the greater sharing of individual-level data from biomedical and public health research are receiving support among researchers and research funders. Despite its potential importance, data sharing presents important ethical, social, and institutional challenges in low-income settings. In this article, we report on qualitative research conducted in five low- and middle-income countries exploring the experiences of key research stakeholders and their views about what constitutes good data-sharing practice.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCooperative BehaviorDeveloping CountriesPublic HealthData CollectionHumansIncomeInformation DisseminationQualitative ResearchResearch Personnelbiomedical research ethicsdata releasedata sharinglow-income countriesresearch dataresearch governance

Identifiers

PMID26297744
PMCPMC4547199

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.