ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2018
Data sharing platforms for de-identified data from human clinical trials.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Analyzing quality of life among people with opioid use disorder from the National Institute on Drug Abuse Data Share initiative: implications for decision making.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Pharmacokinetic analysis across studies to drive knowledge-integration: A tutorial on individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA).CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2023Article
- Current recommendations/practices for anonymising data from clinical trials in order to make it available for sharing: A scoping review.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022Article
- Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Discoverability of information on clinical trial data-sharing platforms.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- Article
- Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Analysis of data dictionary formats of HIV clinical trials.PloS one · 2020Article
- Analyzing Real-World Use of Research Common Data Elements.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Data sharing of de-identified individual participant data is being adopted by an increasing number of sponsors of human clinical trials. In addition to standardizing data syntax for shared trial data, semantic integration of various data elements is the focus of several initiatives that define research common data elements. This perspective article, in the first part, compares several data sharing platforms for de-identified clinical research data in terms of their size, policies and supported features. In the second part, we use a case study approach to describe in greater detail one data sharing platform (Data Share from National Institute of Drug Abuse). We present data on the past use of the platform, data formats offered, data de-identification approaches and its use of research common data elements. We conclude with a summary of current and expected future trends that facilitate secondary research use of data from completed human clinical trials.
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.