ArticleWellcome open research2017
Sharing individual patient and parasite-level data through the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network platform: A qualitative case study.
Article in Wellcome open research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- The development of a global research agenda and individual participant data platform for visceral leishmaniasis: challenges and future opportunities.Parasites & vectors · 2025Article
- Expansion of theOpen forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- FAIR, ethical, and coordinated data sharing for COVID-19 response: a scoping review and cross-sectional survey of COVID-19 data sharing platforms and registries.The Lancet. Digital health · 2023Article
- Credit and Recognition for Contributions to Data-Sharing Platforms Among Cohort Holders and Platform Developers in Europe: Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Article
- Global estimation of anti-malarial drug effectiveness for the treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria 1991-2019.Malaria journal · 2020Article
- Harnessing alternative sources of antimicrobial resistance data to support surveillance in low-resource settings.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2019Review
- Sharing individual patient and parasite-level data through the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network platform: A qualitative case study.Wellcome open research · 2017Article
- A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.F1000Research · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasingly, biomedical researchers are encouraged or required by research funders and journals to share their data, but there's very little guidance on how to do that equitably and usefully, especially in resource-constrained settings. We performed an in-depth case study of one data sharing pioneer: the WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN).
methodsThe case study included a records review, a quantitative analysis of WAARN-related publications, in-depth interviews with 47 people familiar with WWARN, and a witness seminar involving a sub-set of 11 interviewees.
resultsWWARN originally aimed to collate clinical, in vitro, pharmacological and molecular data into linked, open-access databases intended to serve as a public resource to guide antimalarial drug treatment policies. Our study describes how WWARN navigated challenging institutional and academic incentive structures, alongside funders' reluctance to invest in capacity building in malaria-endemic countries, which impeded data sharing. The network increased data contributions by focusing on providing free, online tools to improve the quality and efficiency of data collection, and by inviting collaborative authorship on papers addressing policy-relevant questions that could only be answered through pooled analyses. By July 1, 2016, the database included standardised data from 103 molecular studies and 186 clinical trials, representing 135,000 individual patients. Developing the database took longer and cost more than anticipated, and efforts to increase equity for data contributors are on-going. However, analyses of the pooled data have generated new methods and influenced malaria treatment recommendations globally. Despite not achieving the initial goal of real-time surveillance, WWARN has developed strong data governance and curation tools, which are now being adapted relatively quickly for other diseases.
conclusionsTo be useful, data sharing requires investment in long-term infrastructure. To be feasible, it requires new incentive structures that favour the generation of reusable knowledge.
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.