Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31292127›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2019

Sharing of clinical trial data and results reporting practices among large pharmaceutical companies: cross sectional descriptive study and pilot of a tool to improve company practices.

Jennifer Miller, Joseph S Ross, Marc Wilenzick, Michelle M Mello

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. An ecosystem approach to governing commercial actors in healthcare AI.Policy studies (Policy Studies Institute) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. [Transparency in clinical research: What contribution does the new EU Regulation 536/2014 make?]Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Trust and willingness towards COVID-19 vaccine uptake: a mixed-method study in Ghana, 2021.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Just allocation of COVID-19 vaccines.BMJ global health · 2021
    Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Jennifer MillerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA jennifer.e.miller@yale.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3591-369X
Joseph S RossDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Marc WilenzickBioethics International, New York, NY, USA.
Michelle M MelloStanford Law School, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo develop and pilot a tool to measure and improve pharmaceutical companies' clinical trial data sharing policies and practices.

designCross sectional descriptive analysis.

settingLarge pharmaceutical companies with novel drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2015. DATA SOURCES: Data sharing measures were adapted from 10 prominent data sharing guidelines from expert bodies and refined through a multi-stakeholder deliberative process engaging patients, industry, academics, regulators, and others. Data sharing practices and policies were assessed using data from ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA, corporate websites, data sharing platforms and registries (eg, the Yale Open Data Access (YODA) Project and Clinical Study Data Request (CSDR)), and personal communication with drug companies.

main outcome measuresCompany level, multicomponent measure of accessibility of participant level clinical trial data (eg, analysis ready dataset and metadata); drug and trial level measures of registration, results reporting, and publication; company level overall transparency rankings; and feasibility of the measures and ranking tool to improve company data sharing policies and practices.

resultsOnly 25% of large pharmaceutical companies fully met the data sharing measure. The median company data sharing score was 63% (interquartile range 58-85%). Given feedback and a chance to improve their policies to meet this measure, three companies made amendments, raising the percentage of companies in full compliance to 33% and the median company data sharing score to 80% (73-100%). The most common reasons companies did not initially satisfy the data sharing measure were failure to share data by the specified deadline (75%) and failure to report the number and outcome of their data requests. Across new drug applications, a median of 100% (interquartile range 91-100%) of trials in patients were registered, 65% (36-96%) reported results, 45% (30-84%) were published, and 95% (69-100%) were publicly available in some form by six months after FDA drug approval. When examining results on the drug level, less than half (42%) of reviewed drugs had results for all their new drug applications trials in patients publicly available in some form by six months after FDA approval.

conclusionsIt was feasible to develop a tool to measure data sharing policies and practices among large companies and have an impact in improving company practices. Among large companies, 25% made participant level trial data accessible to external investigators for new drug approvals in accordance with the current study's measures; this proportion improved to 33% after applying the ranking tool. Other measures of trial transparency were higher. Some companies, however, have substantial room for improvement on transparency and data sharing of clinical trials.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicInformation DisseminationCross-Sectional StudiesDrug ApprovalDrug IndustryHumansPilot ProjectsStakeholder ParticipationTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID31292127
PMCPMC6614834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.