Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27990475›Full record

ArticleFacets (Ottawa)2016

Evolving data access policy: The Canadian context.

Stephanie O M Dyke, Katie M Saulnier, Tomi Pastinen, Guillaume Bourque, Yann Joly

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Facets (Ottawa), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Registered access: authorizing data access.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Registered access: a 'Triple-A' approach.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 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.

Stephanie O M DykeDepartment of Human Genetics, Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada.
Katie M SaulnierDepartment of Human Genetics, Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada.
Tomi PastinenDepartment of Human Genetics, Epigenomics Mapping Centre, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada.
Guillaume BourqueDepartment of Human Genetics, Epigenomics Mapping Centre, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada.
Yann JolyDepartment of Human Genetics, Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada.

Funding

CIHR 120608-1CIHR 120609-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In setting up a data access policy to share controlled access data from the McGill Epigenomics Mapping Centre (EMC), an International Human Epigenome Consortium (IHEC) partner project, we encountered ethical and legal challenges that are likely to be relevant to other researchers sharing data, especially from Canadian projects. We discuss our solutions to the following data-sharing challenges, based on comparative legal and policy analysis: (1) providing access to data to a growing number of researchers; (2) maintaining Canadian privacy standards while sharing controlled access data internationally; (3) freedom of information requests; and (4) providing more incentives for researchers to share pre-publication data.

Indexed as

consentcontrolled accessdata accessdata sharingethicsprivacy

Identifiers

PMID27990475
PMCPMC5158303

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.