ReviewBiochemia medica2016
IMPACT Observatory: tracking the evolution of clinical trial data sharing and research integrity.
Review in Biochemia medica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incentivising research data sharing: a scoping review.Wellcome open research · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluation of repositories for sharing individual-participant data from clinical studies.Trials · 2019Review
- Sharing individual participant data from clinical studies: a cross-sectional online survey among Italian patient and citizen groups.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Setting the IMPACT (IMProve Access to Clinical Trial data) Observatory baseline.Biochemia medica · 2018Review
- Sharing and reuse of individual participant data from clinical trials: principles and recommendations.BMJ open · 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
10 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe opening of research data is emerging thanks to the increasing possibilities of digital technology. The opening of clinical trial (CT) data is a part of this process, expected to have positive scientific, ethical, health, and economic impacts thus contributing to research integrity. The January 2016 proposal by the International Council of Medical Journal Editors triggered ample discussion about CT data sharing and reconfirmed the need for an ongoing assessment of its dynamics. The IMProving Access to Clinical Trials data (IMPACT) Observatory aims to play such a role, and assess the data sharing culture, policies, and practices of key players, the impact of their interventions on CTs, and contribute to a transformation of research. The objective of this paper is to present the IMPACT Observatory as well as share some of its preliminary findings. MATERIALS AND
methodsMethods include a scoping study of research, surveys, interviews, and an environmental scan of research data repositories.
resultsOur preliminary findings indicate that although opening of CT data has not yet been achieved, its evolution is encouraging. Initiatives by key players contribute to increasing of CT data sharing, and many barriers are shrinking or disappearing.
conclusionsThe major barrier is the lack of data sharing standards, from preparing data for public sharing to its curatorship, findability and access. However, experiences accumulated by sharing CT data according to "upon request" or "open" mechanisms could inform the development of such standards. The Vivli, CORBEL-ECRIN and Open Trials projects are currently working in this direction.
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.