A review of data sharing statements in observational studies published in the BMJ: A cross-sectional study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: McDonald L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5676190 | biostudies-literature | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A review of data sharing statements in observational studies published in the BMJ: A cross-sectional study.
McDonald Laura L Schultze Anna A Simpson Alex A Graham Sophie S Wasiak Radek R Ramagopalan Sreeram V SV
F1000Research 20170919
In order to understand the current state of data sharing in observational research studies, we reviewed data sharing statements of observational studies published in a general medical journal, the British Medical Journal. We found that the majority (63%) of observational studies published between 2015 and 2017 included a statement that implied that data used in the study could not be shared. If the findings of our exploratory study are confirmed, room for improvement in the sharing of real-world ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the effectiveness of data sharing by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in journals with a full data sharing policy and to describe potential difficulties encountered in the process of performing reanalyses of the primary outcomes.DesignSurvey of published RCTs.SettingPubMed/Medline.Eligibility criteriaRCTs that had been submitted and published by The BMJ and PLOS Medicine subsequent to the adoption of data sharing policies by these journals.Main outcome measureThe primary outcome was data availability, defined as the eventual receipt of complete data with clear labelling. Primary outcomes were reanalyzed to assess to what extent studies were reproduced. Difficulties encountered were described.Results37 RCTs (21 from The BMJ and 16 from PLOS Medicine) published between 2013 and 2016 met the eligibility criteria. 17/37 (46%, 95% confidence interval 30% to 62%) satisfied the definition of data availability and 14 of the 17 (82%, 59% to 94%) were fully reproduced on all their primary outcomes. Of the remaining RCTs, errors were identified in two but reached similar conclusions and one paper did not provide enough information in the Methods section to reproduce the analyses. Difficulties identified included problems in contacting corresponding authors and lack of resources on their behalf in preparing the datasets. In addition, there was a range of different data sharing practices across study groups.ConclusionsData availability was not optimal in two journals with a strong policy for data sharing. When investigators shared data, most reanalyses largely reproduced the original results. Data sharing practices need to become more widespread and streamlined to allow meaningful reanalyses and reuse of data.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework osf.io/c4zke.
| S-EPMC5809812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundData sharing plays a crucial role in health informatics, contributing to improving health information systems, enhancing operational efficiency, informing policy and decision-making, and advancing public health surveillance including disease tracking. Sharing individual participant data in public, environmental, and occupational health trials can help improve public trust and support by enhancing transparent reporting and reproducibility of research findings. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requires all papers to include a data-sharing statement. However, it is unclear whether journals in the field of public, environmental, and occupational health adhere to this requirement.ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate whether public, environmental, and occupational health journals requested data-sharing statements from clinical trials submitted for publication.MethodsIn this bibliometric survey of "Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health" journals, defined by the Journal Citation Reports (as of June 2023), we included 202 journals with clinical trial reports published between 2019 and 2022. The primary outcome was a journal request for a data-sharing statement, as identified in the paper submission instructions. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between journal characteristics and journal requests for data-sharing statements, with results presented as odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% CIs. We also investigated whether the journals included a data-sharing statement in their published trial reports.ResultsAmong the 202 public, environmental, and occupational health journals included, there were 68 (33.7%) journals that did not request data-sharing statements. Factors significantly associated with journal requests for data-sharing statements included open access status (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-0.97), high journal impact factor (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.15-4.78), endorsement of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.25-4.79), and publication in the United Kingdom (OR 7.18, 95% CI 2.61-23.4). Among the 134 journals requesting data-sharing statements, 26.9% (36/134) did not have statements in their published trial reports.ConclusionsOver one-third of the public, environmental, and occupational health journals did not request data-sharing statements in clinical trial reports. Among those journals that requested data-sharing statements in their submission guidance pages, more than one quarter published trial reports with no data-sharing statements. These results revealed an inadequate practice of requesting data-sharing statements by public, environmental, and occupational health journals, requiring more effort at the journal level to implement ICJME recommendations on data-sharing statements.
| S-EPMC11845885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A number of publishers and funders, including PLOS, have recently adopted policies requiring researchers to share the data underlying their results and publications. Such policies help increase the reproducibility of the published literature, as well as make a larger body of data available for reuse and re-analysis. In this study, we evaluate the extent to which authors have complied with this policy by analyzing Data Availability Statements from 47,593 papers published in PLOS ONE between March 2014 (when the policy went into effect) and May 2016. Our analysis shows that compliance with the policy has increased, with a significant decline over time in papers that did not include a Data Availability Statement. However, only about 20% of statements indicate that data are deposited in a repository, which the PLOS policy states is the preferred method. More commonly, authors state that their data are in the paper itself or in the supplemental information, though it is unclear whether these data meet the level of sharing required in the PLOS policy. These findings suggest that additional review of Data Availability Statements or more stringent policies may be needed to increase data sharing.
| S-EPMC5931451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In June 2017, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) announced a requirement that authors reporting the results of clinical trials to journals that follow ICMJE recommendations must include an individual participant data (IPD) sharing statement with manuscripts submitted after 01 July 2018. Additionally, all new clinical trials for which enrollment began on or after 01 January 2019 must include a data sharing statement in the trial's publicly posted registration. This study sought to understand whether IPD sharing statements of clinical trials first registered on ClinicalTrials.gov before 01 January 2019 reflected comprehension of the expectations and a willingness to share. To establish baseline characteristics for the prevalence and quality of IPD sharing statements, we examined IPD sharing statements among 2,040 clinical trials first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov between 01 January 2018 and 06 June 2018. Two independent coders further analyzed the quality of the IPD sharing statements of trials whose registration records indicated the intent to share IPD. The vast majority of trials included in this study did not indicate an intent to share IPD (n = 1,928; 94.5%). Among the trials that did commit to sharing IPD (n = 112, 5.5%), significant variability existed in the content and structure of IPD sharing statements. The results of this study suggest that successful compliance with the IPD sharing statement requirements of the ICMJE will require further clarification, enhanced education, and outreach to investigators.
| S-EPMC7028256 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6882687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo gather knowledge on the current debate, opinions and attitudes of Italian patient and citizen groups on individual participant data (IPD) sharing from clinical studies.DesignCross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsA 22-item online questionnaire was sent by email to 2003 contacts of patient and citizen groups in Italy. We received 311 responses, checked for duplicate respondents (16); 295 single groups responded, 280 providing questionnaires eligible for analysis (response rate 15%). Ninety (32.1%) dealt with oncology and palliative care, 175 (46.2%) operated locally or regionally and 136 (48.6%) were involved in clinical research.Outcome measureData on Italian patient and citizen groups' self-reported knowledge, attitudes and opinions on IPD sharing, mechanisms for IPD access, advantages and risks.ResultsHalf the respondents (144 out of 280, 51%) had some knowledge about the IPD sharing debate, and 60 (42%) stated they had an official position (35 in favour, 19 in favour with restrictions, 2 against, 1 neither for nor against, 3 missing). Nineteen discussed the topic encouraged by this survey; 39% approved broad access by researchers and other professions and identified information to participants, data de-identification, secure archives, access agreements and sanctions for misuse as important aspects of IPD sharing models. Respondents highlighted re-identification, privacy and re-use of data for purposes that participants do not agree on, as main risks, advancement of innovation and reducing waste in research as main advantages. Around half believed IPD sharing would not discourage study participation.ConclusionsHalf the respondents were aware of the debate. Those who had an official position were mainly in favour of IPD sharing. Many supported broad access, asking for conditions important for building trust in entities that handle IPD sharing.Although limited by the low response rate, these findings reinforce the demand for reliable and transparent processes where accountabilities are clear.
| S-EPMC6377545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data sharing is central to the rapid translation of research into advances in clinical medicine and public health practice. In the context of COVID-19, there has been a rush to share data marked by an explosion of population-specific and discipline-specific resources for collecting, curating, and disseminating participant-level data. We conducted a scoping review and cross-sectional survey to identify and describe COVID-19-related platforms and registries that harmonise and share participant-level clinical, omics (eg, genomic and metabolomic data), imaging data, and metadata. We assess how these initiatives map to the best practices for the ethical and equitable management of data and the findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) principles for data resources. We review gaps and redundancies in COVID-19 data-sharing efforts and provide recommendations to build on existing synergies that align with frameworks for effective and equitable data reuse. We identified 44 COVID-19-related registries and 20 platforms from the scoping review. Data-sharing resources were concentrated in high-income countries and siloed by comorbidity, body system, and data type. Resources for harmonising and sharing clinical data were less likely to implement FAIR principles than those sharing omics or imaging data. Our findings are that more data sharing does not equate to better data sharing, and the semantic and technical interoperability of platforms and registries harmonising and sharing COVID-19-related participant-level data needs to improve to facilitate the global collaboration required to address the COVID-19 crisis.
| S-EPMC10552001 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sharing data and code are important components of reproducible research. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there are no well-established evidence-based incentives that reward data sharing, nor randomized studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of data sharing policies at increasing data sharing. A simple incentive, such as an Open Data Badge, might provide the change needed to increase data sharing in health and medical research. This study was a parallel group randomized controlled trial (protocol registration: doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/PXWZQ) with two groups, control and intervention, with 80 research articles published in BMJ Open per group, with a total of 160 research articles. The intervention group received an email offer for an Open Data Badge if they shared their data along with their final publication and the control group received an email with no offer of a badge if they shared their data with their final publication. The primary outcome was the data sharing rate. Badges did not noticeably motivate researchers who published in BMJ Open to share their data; the odds of awarding badges were nearly equal in the intervention and control groups (odds ratio = 0.9, 95% CI [0.1, 9.0]). Data sharing rates were low in both groups, with just two datasets shared in each of the intervention and control groups. The global movement towards open science has made significant gains with the development of numerous data sharing policies and tools. What remains to be established is an effective incentive that motivates researchers to take up such tools to share their data.
| S-EPMC7137948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate clinical trialists' opinions and experiences of sharing of clinical trial data with investigators who are not directly collaborating with the research team.Design and settingCross sectional, web based survey.ParticipantsClinical trialists who were corresponding authors of clinical trials published in 2010 or 2011 in one of six general medical journals with the highest impact factor in 2011.Main outcome measuresSupport for and prevalence of data sharing through data repositories and in response to individual requests, concerns with data sharing through repositories, and reasons for granting or denying requests.ResultsOf 683 potential respondents, 317 completed the survey (response rate 46%). In principle, 236 (74%) thought that sharing de-identified data through data repositories should be required, and 229 (72%) thought that investigators should be required to share de-identified data in response to individual requests. In practice, only 56 (18%) indicated that they were required by the trial funder to deposit the trial data in a repository; of these 32 (57%) had done so. In all, 149 respondents (47%) had received an individual request to share their clinical trial data; of these, 115 (77%) had granted and 56 (38%) had denied at least one request. Respondents' most common concerns about data sharing were related to appropriate data use, investigator or funder interests, and protection of research subjects.ConclusionsWe found strong support for sharing clinical trial data among corresponding authors of recently published trials in high impact general medical journals who responded to our survey, including a willingness to share data, although several practical concerns were identified.
| S-EPMC3502744 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCOVID-19 research has significantly contributed to pandemic response and the enhancement of public health capacity. COVID-19 data collected by provincial/territorial health authorities in Canada are valuable for research advancement yet not readily available to the public, including researchers. To inform developments in public health data-sharing in Canada, we explored Canadians' opinions of public health authorities sharing deidentified individual-level COVID-19 data publicly.Design/setting/interventions/outcomesA national cross-sectional survey was administered in Canada in March 2022, assessing Canadians' opinions on publicly sharing COVID-19 datatypes. Market research firm Léger was employed for recruitment and data collection.ParticipantsAnyone greater than or equal to 18 years and currently living in Canada.Results4981 participants completed the survey with a 92.3% response rate. 79.7% were supportive of provincial/territorial authorities publicly sharing deidentified COVID-19 data, while 20.3% were hesitant/averse/unsure. Datatypes most supported for being shared publicly were symptoms (83.0% in support), geographical region (82.6%) and COVID-19 vaccination status (81.7%). Datatypes with the most aversion were employment sector (27.4% averse), postal area (26.7%) and international travel history (19.7%). Generally supportive Canadians were characterised as being ≥50 years, with higher education, and being vaccinated against COVID-19 at least once. Vaccination status was the most influential predictor of data-sharing opinion, with respondents who were ever vaccinated being 4.20 times more likely (95% CI 3.21 to 5.48, p=0.000) to be generally supportive of data-sharing than those unvaccinated.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that the Canadian public is generally favourable to deidentified data-sharing. Identifying factors that are likely to improve attitudes towards data-sharing are useful to stakeholders involved in data-sharing initiatives, such as public health agencies, in informing the development of public health communication and data-sharing policies. As Canada progresses through the COVID-19 pandemic, and with limited testing and reporting of COVID-19 data, it is essential to improve deidentified data-sharing given the public's general support for these efforts.
| S-EPMC9905784 | biostudies-literature