ArticleBMC medical ethics2020
Data Access Committees.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- Representational Veracity in Data Science Health Research: Targets, Proxies, Labels, and Descriptors.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Call for a fairer approach to authorship in publishing biomedical research.Communications medicine · 2025Review
- Benefits and risks of health data reuse for healthcare providers: stakeholder perspectives from a qualitative interview study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Responsible governance of genomics data and biospecimens in the context of broad consent: experiences of a pioneering access committee in Africa.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- [Civil registration systems and vital statistics: ethical challenges and proposals for governanceSistemas de registro civil e estatísticas vitais: desafios éticos e propostas de governança].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025Article
- An ethics framework for the transition to an operational learning healthcare system.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence Needs Data: Challenges Accessing Italian Databases to Train AI.Asian bioethics review · 2024Article
- A qualitative interview study to determine barriers and facilitators of implementing automated decision support tools for genomic data access.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Ethical and social reflections on the proposed European Health Data Space.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Achieving Procedural Parity in Managing Access to Genomic and Related Health Data: A Global Survey of Data Access Committee Members.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2024Article
- Building a Sustainable Learning Health Care System for Pregnant and Lactating People: Interview Study Among Data Access Providers.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2024Article
- Future-proofing genomic data and consent management: a comprehensive review of technology innovations.GigaScience · 2024Review
- Cross-border data sharing through the lens of research ethics committee members in sub-Saharan Africa.PloS one · 2024Article
- Generalisable Overview of Study Risk for Lead Investigators Needing Guidance (GOSLING): A data governance risk tool.PloS one · 2024Article
- The Ethical Data Practices Framework and Its Implications for Data Privacy Relations between the United States and the European Union.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Public attitudes towards genomic data sharing: results from a provincial online survey in Canada.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- FAIR, ethical, and coordinated data sharing for COVID-19 response: a scoping review and cross-sectional survey of COVID-19 data sharing platforms and registries.The Lancet. Digital health · 2023Article
- Federated Analysis for Privacy-Preserving Data Sharing: A Technical and Legal Primer.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2023Review
- Artificial intelligence and medical research databases: ethical review by data access committees.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
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
backgroundSharing de-identified individual-level health research data is widely promoted and has many potential benefits. However there are also some potential harms, such as misuse of data and breach of participant confidentiality. One way to promote the benefits of sharing while ameliorating its potential harms is through the adoption of a managed access approach where data requests are channeled through a Data Access Committee (DAC), rather than making data openly available without restrictions. A DAC, whether a formal or informal group of individuals, has the responsibility of reviewing and assessing data access requests. Many individual groups, consortiums, institutional and independent DACs have been established but there is currently no widely accepted framework for their organization and function. MAIN TEXT: We propose that DACs, should have the role of both promotion of data sharing and protection of data subjects, their communities, data producers, their institutions and the scientific enterprise. We suggest that data access should be granted by DACs as long as the data reuse has potential social value and provided there is low risk of foreseeable harms. To promote data sharing and to motivate data producers, DACs should encourage secondary uses that are consistent with the interests of data producers and their own institutions. Given the suggested roles of DACs, there should be transparent, simple and clear application procedures for data access. The approach to review of applications should be proportionate to the potential risks involved. DACs should be established within institutional and legal frameworks with clear lines of accountability, terms of reference and membership. We suggest that DACs should not be modelled after research ethics committees (RECs) because their functions and goals of review are different from those of RECs. DAC reviews should be guided by the principles of public health ethics instead of research ethics.
conclusionsIn this paper we have suggested a framework under which DACs should operate, how they should be organised, and how to constitute them.
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.