Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39927449›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2025

A survey on UK researchers' views regarding their experiences with the de-identification, anonymisation, release methods and re-identification risk estimation for clinical trial datasets.

Aryelly Rodriguez, Steff C Lewis, Sandra Eldridge, Tracy Jackson, Christopher J Weir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Aryelly RodriguezEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1352-3922
Steff C LewisEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Sandra EldridgePragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London UK.
Tracy JacksonAsthma UK Centre for Applied Research, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6188-3607
Christopher J WeirEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6494-4903

Funding

Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research AUK-AC-2012-01Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research AUK-AC-2018-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are increasing pressures for anonymised datasets from clinical trials to be shared across the scientific community. However, there is no standardised set of recommendations on how to anonymise and prepare clinical trial datasets for sharing, while an ever-increasing number of anonymised datasets are becoming available for secondary research. Our aim was to explore the current views and experiences of researchers in the United Kingdom about de-identification, anonymisation, release methods and re-identification risk estimation for clinical trial datasets.

methodsWe used an online exploratory cross-sectional descriptive survey that consisted of both open-ended and closed questions.

resultsWe had 38 responses to invitation from June 2022 to October 2022. However, 35 participants (92%) used internal documentation and published guidance to de-identify/anonymise clinical trial datasets. De-identification, followed by anonymisation and then fulfilling data holders' requirements before access was granted (controlled access), was the most common process for releasing the datasets as reported by 18 (47%) participants. However, 11 participants (29%) had previous knowledge of re-identification risk estimation, but they did not use any of the methodologies. Experiences in the process of de-identifying/anonymising the datasets and maintaining such datasets were mostly negative, and the main reported issues were lack of resources, guidance, and training.

conclusionThe majority of responders reported using documented processes for de-identification and anonymisation. However, our survey results clearly indicate that there are still gaps in the areas of guidance, resources and training to fulfil sharing requests of de-identified/anonymised datasets, and that re-identification risk estimation is an underdeveloped area.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicConfidentialityData AnonymizationDatasets as TopicInformation DisseminationResearch PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesHumansRisk AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomClinical trialsdata anonymisationdata sharingde-identificationre-identificationre-identification risk

Identifiers

PMID39927449
PMCPMC11809122

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.