ArticleNeurotrauma reports2023
Perspectives on Data Sharing in Persons With Spinal Cord Injury.
Article in Neurotrauma reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reliability and reproducibility of the modified thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score and the thoracolumbar AO spine injury score for guiding surgical decision-making in thoracolumbar fractures.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Privacy in perspective: research participants' priorities and concerns related to sharing data generated in human neuroscience studies.Neuroethics · 2025Article
- A Community Effort to Develop Common Data Elements for Pre-Clinical Spinal Cord Injury Research.Neurotrauma reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open data sharing of clinical research aims to improve transparency and support novel scientific discoveries. There are also risks, including participant identification and the potential for stigmatization. The perspectives of persons participating in research are needed to inform open data-sharing policies. The aim of the current study was to determine perspectives on data sharing in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI), including risks and benefits, and types of data people are most willing to share. A secondary aim was to examine predictors of willingness to share data. Persons with SCIs in the United States and Canada completed a survey developed and disseminated through various channels, including our community partner, the North American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium. The study collected data from 232 participants, with 52.2% from Canada and 42.2% from the United States, and the majority completed the survey in English. Most participants had previously participated in research and had been living with an SCI for ≥5 years. Overall, most participants reported that the potential benefits of data sharing outweighed the negatives, with persons with SCI seen as the most trustworthy partners for data sharing. The highest levels of concern were that information could be stolen and companies might use the information for marketing purposes. Persons with SCI were generally supportive of data sharing for research purposes. Clinical trials should consider including a statement on open data sharing in informed consents to better acknowledge the contribution of research participants in future studies.
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.