ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Six solutions for clinical study data sharing in Germany.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- FAIR by design (TRACE): A Trusted Research Access & Collaboration Environment.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- A methodology for developing dermatological datasets: lessons from retrospective data collection for AI-based applications.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sharing clinical study data is endorsed by many funders and journals, international policy frameworks, and patients. Reuse of clinical study data demonstrably improves health research, and emerging technologies may enhance the value derived from shared data. Unfortunately, clinical research has failed to harness the transformative power of data sharing, and sharing remains the exception. This opinion piece focuses on the massive obstacles to sharing clinical study data in Germany, which results in very low sharing rates, wasted resources, and frustration among local researchers and international partners. We argue that this sharing crisis demands immediate and concerted action. As a remedy, we propose six feasible steps to boost clinical study data availability in Germany, derived from our experience consulting researchers and exploring solutions with international partners. Our recommendations target ethics committees, trial registries, infrastructures, and governance, while addressing data protection concerns. These measures must be flanked by further actions to foster data sharing skills and knowledge as well as, most importantly, the provision of appropriate incentives. Nevertheless, the proposed changes would be a breakthrough for clinical study data sharing in Germany, removing barriers regarding infrastructures, awareness, legal uncertainty, and responsibilities.
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.