ReviewBMJ open2024
Challenges of sharing individual participant data for secondary research on neglected tropical diseases: the experience of Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative and a call for action.
Review in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) is committed to maximising the scientific value of the individual participant data (IPD) it has collected during its 20 years of activity and the IPD it will collect in the future, while safeguarding research participants' privacy and their right to know how their data will be processed.
objectiveThe objective of this article is to share what DNDi has learnt while working on its commitment to data sharing. It also aims to advance the debate about best practice in the research community to avoid 'IPD sharing paralysis', with a focus on multistakeholder projects involving patients and researchers based in countries with various levels of data privacy regulations and measures.
resultsThe article describes a practical case study outlining the ethical, legal and technical challenges encountered by DNDi in the context of IPD data sharing. The case study demonstrates that each individual research project presents new challenges, which frequently require external support, delaying the process of data sharing and increasing the overall cost.
conclusionThese challenges mean that a case-by-case approach is required for each IPD project to ensure an appropriate balance between the rights of the individual, the integrity of the research and the maximum use of IPD for scientific progress. A collective and inclusive approach is needed to streamline the process of IPD sharing and accelerate research into pressing unmet medical needs.
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.