↓ Skip to main content

EFSPI/PSI working group on data sharing: accessing and working with pharmaceutical clinical trial patient level datasets – a primer for academic researchers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
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
EFSPI/PSI working group on data sharing: accessing and working with pharmaceutical clinical trial patient level datasets – a primer for academic researchers
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0171-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Sudlow, Janice Branson, Tim Friede, David Morgan, Caroline Whately-Smith

Abstract

Access to patient level datasets from clinical trial sponsors continues to be an important topic for the Pharmaceutical Industry as well as academic institutions and researchers. How to make access to patient level data actually happen raises many questions from the perspective of the researcher. Patient level data access models of all major pharmaceutical companies were surveyed and recommendations made to guide academic researchers in the most efficient way through the process of requesting and accessing patient level data. The key considerations for researchers covered here are finding information; writing a research proposal to request data access; the review process; how data are shared; and the expectations of the data holder. A lot of clinical trial information is available on public registries and so these are great sources of information. Depending on the research proposal the required information may be available in Clinical Study Reports and therefore patient level data may not need to be requested. Many data sharing systems have an electronic form or template but in cases where these are not available the proposal needs to be created as a stand-alone document outlining the purpose, statistical analysis plan, identifying the studies for which data are required, the research team members involved, any conflicts of interest and the funding for the research. There are three main review processes - namely having an internal review board, external review board selected by the data holder or an external review board selected by a third party. Data can be shared through Open access i.e. on a public website, direct sharing between the data holder and the researcher, controlled access or the data holder identifies a contract organization to access the data and perform the analyses on behalf of the researcher. The data that are shared will have accompanying documentation to assist the researcher in understanding the original clinical trial and data collection methods. The data holder will require a legally binding data sharing agreement to be set up with the researcher. Additionally the data holder may be available to provide some support to the researcher if questions arise. Whilst the benefits and value of patient level data sharing have yet to be fully realised, we hope that the information outlined in this article will encourage researchers to consider accessing and re-using clinical trial data to support their research questions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 27%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Other 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 5 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 11 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,124,161
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,223
of 2,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,240
of 354,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#24
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,022 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.