Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32817724›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Funders' data-sharing policies in therapeutic research: A survey of commercial and non-commercial funders.

Jeanne Fabiola Gaba, Maximilian Siebert, Alain Dupuy, David Moher, Florian Naudet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Ethical Considerations for Clinical Data Sharing in Craniofacial Research: Recommendations From a Multidisciplinary Working Group.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Responsibilities for receiving and using individual participant data.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Ensuring Prevention Science Research is Synthesis-Ready for Immediate and Lasting Scientific Impact.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Jeanne Fabiola GabaCIC 1414 (Centre d'Investigation Clinique de Rennes), Inserm, CHU Rennes, Univ Rennes, Rennes, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1440-0895
Maximilian SiebertCIC 1414 (Centre d'Investigation Clinique de Rennes), Inserm, CHU Rennes, Univ Rennes, Rennes, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4385-5773
Alain DupuyREPERES (Recherche en Pharmaco-Épidémiologie et Recours aux Soins), CHU Rennes, Univ Rennes, EA, Rennes, France.
David MoherCenter for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-4206
Florian NaudetCIC 1414 (Centre d'Investigation Clinique de Rennes), Inserm, CHU Rennes, Univ Rennes, Rennes, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3760-3801

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFunders are key players in supporting randomized controlled trial (RCT) data-sharing. This research aimed to describe commercial and non-commercial funders' data-sharing policies and to assess the compliance of funded RCTs with the existing data-sharing policies. METHODS AND

findingsFunders of clinical research having funded at least one RCT in the years 2016 to 2018 were surveyed. All 78 eligible non-commercial funders retrieved from the Sherpa/Juliet Initiative website and a random sample of 100 commercial funders selected from pharmaceutical association member lists (LEEM, IFPMA, EFPIA) and the top 100 pharmaceutical companies in terms of drug sales were included. Thirty (out of 78; 38%) non-commercial funders had a data-sharing policy with eighteen (out of 30, 60%) making data-sharing mandatory and twelve (40%) encouraging data-sharing. Forty-one (out of 100; 41%) of commercial funders had a data-sharing policy. Among funders with a data-sharing policy, a survey of two random samples of 100 RCTs registered on Clinicaltrial.gov, data-sharing statements were present for seventy-seven (77%, 95% IC [67%-84%]) and eighty-one (81% [72% - 88%]) of RCTs funded by non-commercial and commercial funders respectively. Intention to share data was expressed in 12% [7%-20%] and 59% [49%- 69%] of RCTs funded by non-commercial and commercial funders respectively.

conclusionsThis survey identified suboptimal performances of funders in setting up data-sharing policies. For those with a data-sharing policy, the implementation of the policy in study registration was limited for commercial funders and of concern for non-commercial funders. The limitations of the present study include its cross-sectional nature, since data-sharing policies are continuously changing. We call for a standardization of policies with a strong evaluation component to make sure that, when in place, these policies are effective.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationDrug IndustryFinancial ManagementHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID32817724
PMCPMC7446799

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.