Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32394875›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2020

Issues and Challenges Associated with Data-Sharing in LMICs: Perspectives of Researchers in Thailand.

Jaranit Kaewkungwal, Pornpimon Adams, Jetsumon Sattabongkot, Reidar K Lie, David Wendler

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jaranit Kaewkungwal1Department of Tropical Hygiene, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pornpimon Adams2Office of Research Services, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Jetsumon Sattabongkot3Mahidol Vivax Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Reidar K Lie4Department of Philosophy, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
David Wendler5Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Mahidol University · THNational Institutes of Health Clinical Center · USUniversity of Bergen · NO

Funding

Research and clinical care without informed consentZIACL010537 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WENDLER, DAVID S · 2014 to 2025
$0k
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data-sharing helps advance scientific research and assures the benefits of research data are maximized. Previous work has highlighted ethical challenges, especially in low- and middle-income countrie (LMIC) countries. This study examined the views of researchers in a middle-income country, Thailand, regarding the most important data-sharing challenges. The target researchers worked in biomedical and related research. The survey was distributed to 38 academic and health-science institutes, 18 university hospitals, 84 nonuniversity hospitals, and 22 research institutes across Thailand; 229 researchers in clinical/basic and social/behavioral sciences, and pubxxlic health/policy participated. Thai researchers were less concerned with informed consent and the feasibility of conducting research and sharing data, focusing on the importance of safeguards when handling data, including transfer to others, and possible lack of control over subsequent data use. The respondents felt that researchers should decide what types of project data are shareable and which data are likely useful to the scientific community. They were more concerned with appropriate acknowledgment and protecting the legal rights of the primary data collectors and providers. Although they had concerns about data access conditions, they rated sharing sufficient data and metadata to reproduce the analysis of the primary outcomes as highly important. These results are important for future efforts of the LMIC countries to develop efficient data-sharing frameworks and establish institutional data access committees. They highlight the importance, for the sustainability and fairness of these efforts, to ensure that parties in LMIC countries receive appropriate credit and are involved in determining where/when/how their data may be used.

Indexed as

AttitudeBiomedical ResearchInformation DisseminationResearch PersonnelCosts and Cost AnalysisData AccuracyDeveloping CountriesEthics, ResearchFemaleHealth PolicyHumansIntellectual PropertyMaleOrganizational PolicyPublic HealthSocial Sciences

Identifiers

PMID32394875
PMCPMC7356467
OpenAlexW3024989886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.