Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39565766›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2024

Data sharing and reuse in clinical research: Are we there yet? A cross-sectional study on progress, challenges and opportunities in LMICs.

Naomi Waithira, Mavuto Mukaka, Evelyne Kestelyn, Keitcheya Chotthanawathit, Dung Nguyen Thi Phuong, Hoa Nguyen Thanh, Anne Osterrieder, Trudie Lang, Phaik Yeong Cheah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Naomi WaithiraNuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2267-9347
Mavuto MukakaNuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Evelyne KestelynNuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5728-0918
Keitcheya ChotthanawathitMahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5346-5288
Dung Nguyen Thi PhuongOxford University Clinical Research Unit, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3267-4769
Hoa Nguyen ThanhOxford University Clinical Research Unit, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Anne OsterriederNuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3378-4211
Trudie LangNuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Phaik Yeong CheahNuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6327-3266

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data sharing holds promise to accelerate innovative discoveries through artificial intelligence (AI) and traditional analytics. However, it remains unclear whether these prospects translate into tangible benefits in improving health care and scientific progress. In this cross-sectional study, we investigate current data reuse practices and explore ways to enhance the use of existing data in clinical research, focusing on low- and middle-income countries. 643 clinical researchers and data professionals participated in the study. 55.5% analysed clinical trial data. 75.3% of data users analysed data from observational studies obtained mainly through personal requests or downloads from publicly available sources. Data was mainly used to influence the design of new studies or in pooled and individual patient-level data meta-analyses. Key benefits realised were career progression and academic qualification, with more gains reported by users affiliated with high-income and upper-middle-income countries (p = 0.046, chi = 8.0). Scientific progress through publications and collaborations was associated with gender (p = 0.012, chi = 10.9), with males more likely to contribute. Benefits to the public although minimal, were associated with career seniority (p = 0.001, chi = 18.8), with works by senior researchers being more likely to influence health policy or treatment guidelines. Although 54% of the respondents accessed at least 3 datasets in the past 5 years, 79.4% of data users encountered difficulty finding relevant data for planned analyses. Researchers affiliated with low and middle income institutions reported more difficulty interpreting data (p = 0.012, chi = 25.7), while challenges with language were regionally influenced (p = 0.000, chi = 51.3) and more commonly reported by researchers in Latin America and South and East Asia institutions. While the utilisation of shared data is lower than expected, focused efforts to enrich existing data with extensive metadata using standard terminologies can enhance data findability. Investment in training programmes, building professional networks, and mentorship in data science may improve the quality of data generated and increase researchers' ability to use existing datasets.

Identifiers

PMID39565766
PMCPMC11578489

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.