ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2019
Strength in Numbers: The WWARN Case Study of Purpose-Driven Data Sharing.
Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Chagas disease study landscape: A systematic review of clinical and observational antiparasitic treatment studies to assess the potential for establishing an individual participant-level data platform.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Competing risk events in antimalarial drug trials in uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network individual participant data meta-analysis.Malaria journal · 2019Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- What constitutes equitable data sharing in global health research? A scoping review of the literature on low-income and middle-income country stakeholders' perspectives.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- How do we measure the costs, benefits, and harms of sharing data from biomedical studies? A protocol for a scoping review.Open research Europe · 2023Article
- Spatiotemporal spread of Plasmodium falciparum mutations for resistance to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine across Africa, 1990-2020.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Improving anthelmintic treatment for schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminthiases through sharing and reuse of individual participant data.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- Article
- The WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network Clinical Trials Publication Library: A Live, Open-Access Database ofThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data are the basis for all scientific output. The sharing of data supporting that output is an important aspect of scientific communication, and is increasingly required by funders and publishers. Yet, academic advancement seldom recognizes or rewards data sharing. This article argues that although mandating data sharing will increase the amount of data available, this will not necessarily enable or encourage the secondary analyses needed to achieve its purported public good. We, therefore, need to build models that maximize the efficiency of processes for data collation and curation, and genuinely reward those engaged in data sharing and reuse. The WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network has 10 years of experience as a data platform, and its study group approach provides an example of how some of the challenges in equitable and impactful data-sharing and secondary use can be addressed, with a focus on the priorities of researchers in resource-limited settings.
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.