ArticleSouth African journal of bioethics and law2024
Enhancing data governance in collaborative research: Introducing SA DTA 1.1.
Article in South African journal of bioethics and law, 2024. 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.
- Communicating clearly about data sharing in genomics.Human genomics · 2025Review
- Editorial: Data governance in African health research: ELSI challenges and solutions.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The SA DTA was updated to better serve the South African research community by providing clarity on exactly when - at what stage during research - institutions hold rights to the data they generate in collaborative research contexts where raw data are received and integrated with other data. SA DTA 1.1 introduces significant enhancements in data governance, focusing on the explicit definition and management of 'inferential data'. Objectives: To introduce SA DTA 1.1 and demonstrate its practical application in real-world research contexts. Methods: Using a descriptive design, the study presents two practical case studies: one involving two universities and another a university and a pharmaceutical company. The first case focuses on identifying genetic markers for neurodegenerative diseases, while the second addresses genetic markers for chronic diseases. Results: In the first case study, the entity conducting the analysis generated inferential data independently, thereby gaining sole rights in such data. In the second case study, both collaborating entities contributed to the data analysis, leading to joint rights in the inferential data. These findings demonstrate the flexibility and clarity provided by SA DTA 1.1 in managing data ownership and intellectual property rights. Conclusion: SA DTA 1.1 significantly advances data governance by providing clear and adaptable guidelines for data rights in collaborative research. It supports ethical and efficient data sharing, protecting researchers' interests and fostering global scientific innovation.
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.