ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2016
Publishing descriptions of non-public clinical datasets: proposed guidance for researchers, repositories, editors and funding organisations.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biosecurity in an age of open science.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Assessment of a demonstrator repository for individual clinical trial data built upon DSpace.F1000Research · 2020Article
- Five years of Scientific Data.Scientific data · 2019Article
- Evaluation of repositories for sharing individual-participant data from clinical studies.Trials · 2019Review
- Article
- Finding a sensible approach to sensitive data.Scientific data · 2018Article
- A FAIR guide for data providers to maximise sharing of human genomic data.PLoS computational biology · 2018Article
- Article
- Open data and digital morphology.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2017Review
- Data Sharing: Convert Challenges into Opportunities.Frontiers in public health · 2017Review
- Article
- Publishing descriptions of non-public clinical datasets: proposed guidance for researchers, repositories, editors and funding organisations.Research integrity and peer review · 2016Article
- Let's be pragmatic about clinical data.Scientific data · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sharing of experimental clinical research data usually happens between individuals or research groups rather than via public repositories, in part due to the need to protect research participant privacy. This approach to data sharing makes it difficult to connect journal articles with their underlying datasets and is often insufficient for ensuring access to data in the long term. Voluntary data sharing services such as the Yale Open Data Access (YODA) and Clinical Study Data Request (CSDR) projects have increased accessibility to clinical datasets for secondary uses while protecting patient privacy and the legitimacy of secondary analyses but these resources are generally disconnected from journal articles-where researchers typically search for reliable information to inform future research. New scholarly journal and article types dedicated to increasing accessibility of research data have emerged in recent years and, in general, journals are developing stronger links with data repositories. There is a need for increased collaboration between journals, data repositories, researchers, funders, and voluntary data sharing services to increase the visibility and reliability of clinical research. Using the journal
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.