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.
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.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- An ecosystem approach to governing commercial actors in healthcare AI.Policy studies (Policy Studies Institute) · 2025Article
- Analyzing collaboration dynamics in new drug R&D: A case study of two lipid-lowering drugs.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Data cleaning and harmonization of clinical trial data: Medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder.PloS one · 2024Article
- A 10-year update to the principles for clinical trial data sharing by pharmaceutical companies: perspectives based on a decade of literature and policies.BMC medicine · 2023Article
- Efficient Augmented Intelligence Framework for Bladder Lesion Detection.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2023Article
- Growing research and development of targeted anticancer drugs in China.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2023Article
- Pandemic preparedness and response: beyond the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator.BMJ global health · 2023Review
- Metrics, baseline scores, and a tool to improve sponsor performance on clinical trial diversity: retrospective cross sectional study.BMJ medicine · 2023Article
- [Transparency in clinical research: What contribution does the new EU Regulation 536/2014 make?]Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2023Review
- Data capture and sharing in the COVID-19 pandemic: a cause for concern.The Lancet. Digital health · 2022Review
- Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- Trust and willingness towards COVID-19 vaccine uptake: a mixed-method study in Ghana, 2021.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2022Article
- Medical journal requirements for clinical trial data sharing: Ripe for improvement.PLoS medicine · 2021Article
- Leveraging external data in the design and analysis of clinical trials in neuro-oncology.The Lancet. Oncology · 2021Review
- Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Drug Trials in High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries and Local Commercial Availability of Newly Approved Drugs.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Just allocation of COVID-19 vaccines.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- A comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one.PloS one · 2021Article
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
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
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.