↓ Skip to main content

Sharing data from clinical trials: the rationale for a controlled access approach

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
53 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sharing data from clinical trials: the rationale for a controlled access approach
Published in
Trials, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0604-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew R Sydes, Anthony L Johnson, Sarah K Meredith, Mary Rauchenberger, Annabelle South, Mahesh KB Parmar

Abstract

The move towards increased transparency around clinical trials is welcome. Much focus has been on under-reporting of trials and access to individual patient data to allow independent verification of findings. There are many other good reasons for data sharing from clinical trials. We describe some key issues in data sharing, including the challenges of open access to data. These include issues in consent and disclosure; risks in identification, including self-identification; risks in distorting data to prevent self-identification; and risks in analysis. These risks have led us to develop a controlled access policy, which safeguards the rights of patients entered in our trials, guards the intellectual property rights of the original researchers who designed the trial and collected the data, provides a barrier against unnecessary duplication, and ensures that researchers have the necessary resources and skills to analyse the data. We briefly discuss the practicalities of our current approach to data sharing, including ensuring that data are discoverable and how to deal with old studies. We describe data sharing activities at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit. One hundred and three data sharing activities were logged from 2012 to 2014 from external and internal applicants. The motivations are varied, but none have been for replication of the primary results. For any request to share data, we note the important role of independent reviewers as well as reviewers who know the study well, and present some of the key questions that all reviewers should ask when deciding whether a request is reasonable. We consider the responsibilities of all parties. We highlight the potential for opportunity costs. Clinical trial data should be shared for reasonable requests but there are many practical issues that must be explicitly considered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Greece 1 1%
Unknown 81 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Student > Master 8 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 21 25%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 10%
Computer Science 6 7%
Psychology 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 22 26%