Dataset Information

Use of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Data Repository.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Research on data sharing from clinical trials has focused on elucidating perceptions, barriers, and attitudes among trialists and study participants with respect to sharing data. However, little information exists regarding utilization or associated publication of articles once clinical trial data have been widely shared. METHODS:We analyzed administrative records of investigator requests for data access, linked publications, and bibliometrics to describe the use of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute data repository. RESULTS:From January 2000 through May 2016, a total of 370 investigators requested data from 1 or more clinical trials. Requests for trial data have been increasing, with 195 investigators (53%) initiating requests during the last 4.4 years of the study period. The predominant reason for requesting data was post hoc secondary analysis of new questions (72%), followed by analytic or statistical approaches to clinical trials (9%) and meta-analyses or pooled study research (7%). Of 172 requests with online project descriptions, only 2 requests were initiated for reanalysis of primary-outcome findings. Data from 88 of 100 available clinical trials were requested at least once, and the median time from repository availability to first request was 235 days. A total of 277 articles were published on the basis of data from 47 trials. Citation metrics from 224 articles indicated that half of the publications have cumulative citations that rank in the top 34% normalized for subject category and year of publication. CONCLUSIONS:Demand for trial data for secondary analysis has been increasing. Requesting data for the a priori purpose of reanalysis or verification of original findings was rare.

SUBMITTER: Coady SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5665376 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Data Repository.

Coady Sean A SA Mensah George A GA Wagner Elizabeth L EL Goldfarb Miriam E ME Hitchcock Denise M DM Giffen Carol A CA

The New England journal of medicine 20170329 19

<h4>Background</h4>Research on data sharing from clinical trials has focused on elucidating perceptions, barriers, and attitudes among trialists and study participants with respect to sharing data. However, little information exists regarding utilization or associated publication of articles once clinical trial data have been widely shared.<h4>Methods</h4>We analyzed administrative records of investigator requests for data access, linked publications, and bibliometrics to describe the use of the ...[more]

PMID: 28402243

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Rapid publication of clinical trials is essential in order for the findings to yield maximal benefits for public health and scientific progress. Factors affecting the speed of publication of the main results of government-funded trials have not been well characterized. METHODS:We analyzed 244 extramural randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular interventions that were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). We selected trials for which data collection had been completed between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011. Our primary outcome measure was the time between completion of the trial and publication of the main results in a peer-reviewed journal. RESULTS:As of March 31, 2012, the main results of 156 trials (64%) had been published (Kaplan-Meier median time to publication, 25 months, with 57% published within 30 months). Trials that focused on clinical events were published more rapidly than those that focused on surrogate measures (median, 9 months vs. 31 months; P<0.001). The only independent predictors of more rapid publication were a focus on clinical events rather than surrogate end points (adjusted publication rate ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.26 to 3.53; P=0.004) and higher costs of conducting the trial, up to a threshold of approximately $5 million (P<0.001). The 37 trials that focused on clinical events and cost at least $5 million accounted for 67% of the funds spent on clinical trials but received 82% of the citations. After adjustment of the analysis for a focus on clinical events and for cost, trial results that were classified as positive were published more quickly than those classified as negative. CONCLUSIONS:Results of less than two thirds of NHLBI-funded randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular interventions were published within 30 months after completion of the trial. Trials that focused on clinical events were published more quickly than those that focused on surrogate end points. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.).

Project description:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a major public health problem that is rising in prevalence, is associated with high morbidity and mortality and is considered to be the greatest unmet need in cardiovascular medicine today because of a general lack of effective treatments. To address this challenging syndrome, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a working group made up of experts in HFpEF and novel research methodologies to discuss research gaps and to prioritize research directions over the next decade. Here, we summarize the discussion of the working group, followed by key recommendations for future research priorities. There was uniform recognition that HFpEF is a highly integrated, multiorgan, systemic disorder requiring a multipronged investigative approach in both humans and animal models to improve understanding of mechanisms and treatment of HFpEF. It was recognized that advances in the understanding of basic mechanisms and the roles of inflammation, macrovascular and microvascular dysfunction, fibrosis, and tissue remodeling are needed and ideally would be obtained from (1) improved animal models, including large animal models, which incorporate the effects of aging and associated comorbid conditions; (2) repositories of deeply phenotyped physiological data and human tissue, made accessible to researchers to enhance collaboration and research advances; and (3) novel research methods that take advantage of computational advances and multiscale modeling for the analysis of complex, high-density data across multiple domains. The working group emphasized the need for interactions among basic, translational, clinical, and epidemiological scientists and across organ systems and cell types, leveraging different areas or research focus, and between research centers. A network of collaborative centers to accelerate basic, translational, and clinical research of pathobiological mechanisms and treatment strategies in HFpEF was discussed as an example of a strategy to advance research progress. This resource would facilitate comprehensive, deep phenotyping of a multicenter HFpEF patient cohort with standardized protocols and a robust biorepository. The research priorities outlined in this document are meant to stimulate scientific advances in HFpEF by providing a road map for future collaborative investigations among a diverse group of scientists across multiple domains.

Dataset Information

Use of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Data Repository.

Publications

Use of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Data Repository.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets