ArticleThe Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association2026
Participant Perspectives on Data Sharing in Clinical Craniofacial Research: Qualitative Interviews With Participants With Craniofacial Microsomia and Their Caregivers.
Article in The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Ethical Considerations for Clinical Data Sharing in Craniofacial Research: Recommendations From a Multidisciplinary Working Group.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026Article
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
ObjectiveTo describe the perspectives of participants and caregivers of pediatric participants on data sharing in clinical craniofacial research.DesignQualitative interview study of research participants' attitudes about data sharing.SettingOne-to-one interviews via web conferencing.Patients, ParticipantsAdults (n = 7) and adolescents (n = 8) with craniofacial microsomia and caregivers (n = 20) of children with craniofacial microsomia who previously participated in clinical craniofacial research.InterventionsSemistructured interview guide addressing 4 main topics: (1) expectations about data collection and sharing; (2) preferences and limitations for data sharing; (3) consent/assent language; and (4) gaps and future needs.Main Outcome Measure(s)We iteratively developed a qualitative codebook based on inductive interview transcript review and conducted a thematic analysis of coded data.ResultsWe identified 5 themes within participants' descriptions of their attitudes about data sharing: (1) participants hope that research participation and data sharing will advance science for the benefit of the craniofacial community; (2) sharing images is broadly recognized as important for craniofacial research but raises discomfort for some; (3) participants generally view broad data sharing and use positively but raise concerns focused on harm to the craniofacial community; (4) trustworthy researchers and data protections provide reassurance for sharing data; and (5) decisions about pediatric data sharing are complex in the context of developing autonomy.ConclusionsThese findings illustrate ethical complexities for data sharing in clinical craniofacial research related to balancing community-oriented benefits and risks, providing control over sharing images, ensuring researcher trustworthiness, and respecting a child's future autonomy interests.
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.