ArticleBMJ open2016
Data sharing through an NIH central database repository: a cross-sectional survey of BioLINCC users.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improved Prognostic Performance of Cardiac Power Output With Right Atrial Pressure: A Subanalysis of the ESCAPE Trial.Journal of cardiac failure · 2022Trial
- Secondary Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Methodological Considerations and Best Practices.Annals of clinical epidemiology · 2025Article
- State of open science in cancer research.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024Article
- A composite metric for predicting benefit from spironolactone in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.ESC heart failure · 2021Observational
- Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Aortic pulsatility index predicts clinical outcomes in heart failure: a sub-analysis of the ESCAPE trial.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
- Perspective on Data-Sharing Requirements for the Necessary Evolution of Drug Development.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
- Brief introduction of medical database and data mining technology in big data era.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2020Review
- The National MDS Natural History Study: design of an integrated data and sample biorepository to promote research studies in myelodysplastic syndromes.Leukemia & lymphoma · 2019Article
- Generation of Standardized E-Learning Content from Digital Medical Collections.Journal of medical systems · 2019Article
- Individual Patient-Level Data Sharing for Continuous Learning: A Strategy for Trial Data Sharing.NAM perspectives · 2019Review
- Overview and experience of the YODA Project with clinical trial data sharing after 5 years.Scientific data · 2018Article
- Article
- Biomedical journal speed and efficiency: a cross-sectional pilot survey of author experiences.Research integrity and peer review · 2018Article
- Use of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Data Repository.The New England journal of medicine · 2017Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo characterise experiences using clinical research data shared through the National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC) clinical research data repository, along with data recipients' perceptions of the value, importance and challenges with using BioLINCC data. DESIGN AND
settingCross-sectional web-based survey.
participantsAll investigators who requested and received access to clinical research data from BioLINCC between 2007 and 2014.
main outcome measuresReasons for BioLINCC data request, research project plans, interactions with original study investigators, BioLINCC experience and other project details.
resultsThere were 536 investigators who requested and received access to clinical research data from BioLINCC between 2007 and 2014. Of 441 potential respondents, 195 completed the survey (response rate=44%); 89% (n=174) requested data for an independent study, 17% (n=33) for pilot/preliminary analysis. Commonly cited reasons for requesting data through BioLINCC were feasibility of collecting data of similar size and scope (n=122) and insufficient financial resources for primary data collection (n=76). For 95% of respondents (n=186), a primary research objective was to complete new research, as opposed to replicate prior analyses. Prior to requesting data from BioLINCC, 18% (n=36) of respondents had contacted the original study investigators to obtain data, whereas 24% (n=47) had done so to request collaboration. Nearly all (n=176; 90%) respondents found the data to be suitable for their proposed project; among those who found the data unsuitable (n=19; 10%), cited reasons were data too complicated to use (n=5) and data poorly organised (n=5). Half (n=98) of respondents had completed their proposed projects, of which 67% (n=66) have been published.
conclusionsInvestigators were primarily using clinical research data from BioLINCC for independent research, making use of data that would otherwise have not been feasible to collect.
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.