ArticleTrials2016
Sharing raw data from clinical trials: what progress since we first asked "Whose data set is it anyway?".
Article in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Meta-analytical approaches to ordinal outcome data in clinical interventional studies: A scoping review with reproducible research.PloS one · 2025Article
- PRIME-IPD SERIES Part 1. The PRIME-IPD tool promoted verification and standardization of study datasets retrieved for IPD meta-analysis.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- The WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network Clinical Trials Publication Library: A Live, Open-Access Database ofThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2020Article
- Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Evaluation of repositories for sharing individual-participant data from clinical studies.Trials · 2019Review
- Top ten errors of statistical analysis in observational studies for cancer research.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2018Review
- Sharing and reuse of individual participant data from clinical trials: principles and recommendations.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Clinical Research Informatics: Supporting the Research Study Lifecycle.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2017Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Ten years ago, one of the first papers published in Trials was a commentary entitled "Whose data set is it anyway?" The commentary pointed out that trialists routinely refused requests for data sharing and argued that this attitude was a community standard that had no rational basis. At the time, there had been few calls for clinical trial data sharing and certainly no institutional support. Today the situation could not be more different. Numerous organizations now recommend or require raw data to be made available, including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which recently proposed that clinical trial data sharing be a "condition of … publication." Furthermore, the literature is replete with papers covering an enormously wide variety of topics on data sharing. But despite a tectonic shift in attitudes, we are yet to see clinical trial data sharing become an unquestioned norm, where a researcher can readily download a data set from a trial almost as easily as they can now download a copy of the published paper. The battle over the next few years is to go beyond changing minds to ensuring that real data sets are routinely made available.
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.