Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40474992›Full record

ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2023

Responsibilities for receiving and using individual participant data.

Kylie E Hunter, Aidan C Tan, Angela C Webster, Daniel G Hamilton, Adrian Barnett, Lee Jones, Myra Cheng, Salma Fahridin, Antonio Laguna-Camacho, Sol Libesman and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Responsibilities for receiving and using individual participant data.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023
    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

13 authors.

Kylie E HunterNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2796-9220
Aidan C TanNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0354-4006
Angela C WebsterNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.
Daniel G HamiltonMetaMelb Research Group University of Melbourne Melbourne Victoria Australia.
Adrian BarnettSchool of Public Health and Social Work Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Queensland Australia.
Lee JonesSchool of Public Health and Social Work Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Queensland Australia.
Myra ChengAustralian Research Data Commons Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia.
Salma FahridinNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.
Antonio Laguna-CamachoSchool of Medicine Autonomous University of the State of Mexico Toluca Mexico.
Sol LibesmanNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.
Mark HoffmannQueensland Cyber Infrastructure Foundation Brisbane Queensland Australia.
Rui WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Monash University Melbourne Victoria Australia.
Anna Lene SeidlerNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0027-1623

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Sharing of individual participant data enhances the value of existing data to generate new evidence and inform decision-making. While there is strong in-principle support for data sharing, in practice study data are often difficult to find, access, and re-use. Currently, there is no consensus statement to guide the data-sharing process. In particular, more guidance is needed on the responsibilities of data recipients for re-using individual participant data. Purpose: To determine views on the responsibilities of recipients of study data, and to propose how these responsibilities could be met. Methods: A 2-h online focus group was conducted at the 2021 Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-research and Open Science conference. Three example data-sharing scenarios were discussed (evidence synthesis, study reproducibility, and secondary analyses). Notes and audio transcripts were collated using thematic analysis and shared with attendees for further iterative input. Results: A purposive sample of 16 conference delegates attended the focus group. Analyses revealed four recurring themes that were synthesized into recommendations. The "privacy and ethics" theme described the need for data recipients to prioritize the protection of participant privacy, and the recommendation to proactively share a secure data management plan and evidence of ethical oversight with the data provider. The "capability and resourcing" theme required recipients to demonstrate sufficient capacity to process and analyze study data. The "recognition and collaboration" theme asserted the responsibility to acknowledge the contributions of data providers and invite them to contribute to the secondary project. Last, the "compliance" theme focused on the responsibility to adhere to local data sharing regulations. Conclusions: Successful data sharing and re-use requires cooperation from multiple stakeholders. We identified the responsibilities of recipients of study data to the individual from whom data arose and the research team who collected the data. Implementation of these in practice could facilitate increased data sharing.

Indexed as

data providerdata recipientdata sharinghealth researchindividual participant datareproducibility

Identifiers

PMID40474992
PMCPMC11795960

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.