Whose data are they anyway?

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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Patient consent to publication and data sharing in industry and NIH-funded clinical trials.Trials · 2018
   Article
2. Sharing raw data from clinical trials: what progress since we first asked "Whose data set is it anyway?".Trials · 2016
   Article
3. Is the relationship among outcome variables shown in randomized trials?Trials · 2015
   Article
4. Presentation of continuous outcomes in randomised trials: an observational study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2012
   Article
5. Estimating the re-identification risk of clinical data sets.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2012
   Article
6. Lack of proportionality. Seven specifications of public interest that override post-approval commercial interests on limited access to clinical data.Trials · 2012
   Article
7. De-identifying a public use microdata file from the Canadian national discharge abstract database.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2011
   Article
8. The re-identification risk of Canadians from longitudinal demographics.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2011
   Article
9. Incongruence between test statistics and P values in medical papers.BMC medical research methodology · 2004
   Article
10. Bias in reporting clinical trials.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 1998
    Article
11. Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996
    Article
12. Protecting privacy using k-anonymity.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
    Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Whose data are they anyway? Access to raw data would need legislation.1997
• Commented on by
  Whose data are they anyway? Datasharing would cause problems in nuclear industry.1997
• Commented on by
  Whose data are they anyway? Food industry could be misusing data.1997
• Comment on
  Intersalt revisited: further analyses of 24 hour sodium excretion and blood pressure within and across populations. Intersalt Cooperative Research Group.1996
• Comment on
  Intersalt: hypertension rise with age revisited.1996

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as