Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35981894›Full record

ArticleNeurology2022

Survey of Investigators About Sharing Human Research Data in the Neurosciences.

Saskia Hendriks, Khara M Ramos, Christine Grady

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Saskia HendriksFrom the The Office of Neuroscience Communications and Engagement (S.H., K.M.R.), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; and Department of Bioethics (S.H., C.G.), Clinical Center National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD. saskia.hendriks@nih.gov.
Khara M RamosFrom the The Office of Neuroscience Communications and Engagement (S.H., K.M.R.), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; and Department of Bioethics (S.H., C.G.), Clinical Center National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Christine GradyFrom the The Office of Neuroscience Communications and Engagement (S.H., K.M.R.), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; and Department of Bioethics (S.H., C.G.), Clinical Center National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesIn the neurosciences, significant opportunities for sharing individual-level data are underexploited. Commentators suggest various barriers to data sharing, which may need to be addressed. Investigators' perspectives on the main barriers are unclear. Furthermore, bioethicists have raised concerns about the potential misuse of neuroscience data, although discussions are hampered by uncertainty about the potential risks. It is unclear how common sensitive data are obtained and whether investigators judge them as sensitive.

methodsAn online survey was disseminated among 1,190 principal investigators (PIs) of active National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Mental Health, or NIH Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies Initiative grants involving human subject research.

resultsA total of 397 investigators responded to the survey (response rate 33%). Most investigators (84%) support efforts to increase sharing of deidentified individual-level data. However, investigators perceive many barriers to data sharing. The largest barriers were costs and time; limited interpretation of the data without understanding the context of data collection; lack of incentives; limited standardization and norms for data acquisition, formatting, and description; and heterogeneity of data types. Several types of data described as sensitive in the literature are common among neuroscience studies, for example, neural correlates of behavior, emotions, or decision making (71%) and/or predictive data (54%). Although most investigators consider it unlikely or extremely unlikely for their research data to be misused to harm individual research participants (82%), the majority were at least slightly concerned about potential harm to individuals if their research data were misused (65%). Investigators with more easily reidentifiable data, data from vulnerable groups, and neural data were more concerned about the likelihood of misuse and/or magnitude of harm of misuse of their research data. DISCUSSION: We hope these data help prioritize the development of tools and strategies to overcome the main barriers to data sharing. Furthermore, these data provide input on what may be sensitive data for which additional safeguards should be considered.

Indexed as

NeurosciencesResearch PersonnelFinancing, OrganizedHumansNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (U.S.)Surveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35981894
PMCPMC9576293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.