↓ Skip to main content

Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
6 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
85 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
195 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it
Published in
Trials, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-12-249
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter C Gøtzsche

Abstract

International calls for registering all trials involving humans and for sharing the results, and sometimes also the raw data and the trial protocols, have increased in recent years. Such calls have come, for example, from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Health Organization (WHO), the US National Institutes of Heath, the US Congress, the European Commission, the European ombudsman, journal editors, The Cochrane Collaboration, and several funders, for example the UK Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation. Calls for data sharing have mostly been restricted to publicly-funded research, but I argue that the distinction between publicly-funded and industry-funded research is an artificial and irrelevant one, as the interests of the patients must override commercial interests. I also argue why it is a moral imperative to render all results from all trials involving humans, also healthy volunteers, publicly available. Respect for trial participants who often run a personal and unknown risk by participating in trials requires that they--and therefore also the society at large that they represent--be seen as the ultimate owners of trial data. Data sharing would lead to tremendous benefits for patients, progress in science, and rational use of healthcare resources based on evidence we can trust. The harmful consequences are minor compared to the benefits. It has been amply documented that the current situation, with selective reporting of favorable research and biased data analyses being the norm rather than the exception, is harmful to patients and has led to the death of tens of thousands of patients that could have been avoided. National and supranational legislation is needed to make data sharing happen as guidelines and other voluntary agreements do not work. I propose the contents of such legislation and of appropriate sanctions to hold accountable those who refuse to share their data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 85 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 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
France 2 1%
Denmark 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 180 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 18%
Researcher 31 16%
Student > Master 30 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 8%
Other 11 6%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 38 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 29%
Social Sciences 20 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 8%
Computer Science 14 7%
Psychology 11 6%
Other 31 16%
Unknown 47 24%