Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27410386›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2016

EFSPI/PSI working group on data sharing: accessing and working with pharmaceutical clinical trial patient level datasets - a primer for academic researchers.

Rebecca Sudlow, Janice Branson, Tim Friede, David Morgan, Caroline Whately-Smith

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2017
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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 · 2017
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data.BMC medical research methodology · 2016
    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.

Rebecca SudlowRoche Products Limited, Welwyn Garden City, UK. rebecca.sudlow@roche.com.
Janice BransonNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Tim FriedeUniversity Medical Center, Goettingen, Germany.
David MorganIpsen Biopharm (now Pharmaceutical Medicine Group, King's College, London), Slough, UK.
Caroline Whately-SmithWhately-Smith Limited, Kings Langley, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccess to patient level datasets from clinical trial sponsors continues to be an important topic for the Pharmaceutical Industry as well as academic institutions and researchers. How to make access to patient level data actually happen raises many questions from the perspective of the researcher.

methodsPatient level data access models of all major pharmaceutical companies were surveyed and recommendations made to guide academic researchers in the most efficient way through the process of requesting and accessing patient level data.

resultsThe key considerations for researchers covered here are finding information; writing a research proposal to request data access; the review process; how data are shared; and the expectations of the data holder. A lot of clinical trial information is available on public registries and so these are great sources of information. Depending on the research proposal the required information may be available in Clinical Study Reports and therefore patient level data may not need to be requested. Many data sharing systems have an electronic form or template but in cases where these are not available the proposal needs to be created as a stand-alone document outlining the purpose, statistical analysis plan, identifying the studies for which data are required, the research team members involved, any conflicts of interest and the funding for the research. There are three main review processes - namely having an internal review board, external review board selected by the data holder or an external review board selected by a third party. Data can be shared through Open access i.e. on a public website, direct sharing between the data holder and the researcher, controlled access or the data holder identifies a contract organization to access the data and perform the analyses on behalf of the researcher. The data that are shared will have accompanying documentation to assist the researcher in understanding the original clinical trial and data collection methods. The data holder will require a legally binding data sharing agreement to be set up with the researcher. Additionally the data holder may be available to provide some support to the researcher if questions arise.

conclusionWhilst the benefits and value of patient level data sharing have yet to be fully realised, we hope that the information outlined in this article will encourage researchers to consider accessing and re-using clinical trial data to support their research questions.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDrug IndustryInformation DisseminationBiomedical ResearchConfidentialityHumansClinical trial dataData sharingData transparencyPatient level data

Identifiers

PMID27410386
PMCPMC4943504

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.