European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network, Paris, France
Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2021 Aug 18;11(8):e049228. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049228.
To explore the impact of data-sharing initiatives on the intent to share data, on actual data sharing, on the use of shared data and on research output and impact of shared data.
All studies investigating data-sharing practices for individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials.
We searched the Medline database, the Cochrane Library, the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index via Web of Science, and preprints and proceedings of the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication. In addition, we inspected major clinical trial data-sharing platforms, contacted major journals/publishers, editorial groups and some funders.
Two reviewers independently extracted information on methods and results from resources identified using a standardised questionnaire. A map of the extracted data was constructed and accompanied by a narrative summary for each outcome domain.
93 studies identified in the literature search (published between 2001 and 2020, median: 2018) and 5 from additional information sources were included in the scoping review. Most studies were descriptive and focused on early phases of the data-sharing process. While the willingness to share IPD from clinical trials is extremely high, actual data-sharing rates are suboptimal. A survey of journal data suggests poor to moderate enforcement of the policies by publishers. Metrics provided by platforms suggest that a large majority of data remains unrequested. When requested, the purpose of the reuse is more often secondary analyses and meta-analyses, rarely re-analyses. Finally, studies focused on the real impact of data-sharing were rare and used surrogates such as citation metrics.
There is currently a gap in the evidence base for the impact of IPD sharing, which entails uncertainties in the implementation of current data-sharing policies. High level evidence is needed to assess whether the value of medical research increases with data-sharing practices.
探索数据共享计划对数据共享意愿、实际数据共享、共享数据使用以及共享数据的研究成果和影响的影响。
所有调查临床试验个体参与者数据 (IPD) 数据共享实践的研究。
我们检索了 Medline 数据库、Cochrane 图书馆、科学引文索引扩展版和 Web of Science 中的社会科学引文索引,以及预印本和同行评审与科学出版国际大会的会议记录。此外,我们还检查了主要的临床试验数据共享平台,联系了主要的期刊/出版商、编辑团体和一些资助者。
两名审查员使用标准化问卷独立从确定的资源中提取方法和结果信息。绘制了提取数据的地图,并附有每个结果领域的叙述性总结。
文献检索中确定了 93 项研究(发表于 2001 年至 2020 年之间,中位数为 2018 年)和 5 项来自其他信息来源的研究被纳入范围综述。大多数研究是描述性的,侧重于数据共享过程的早期阶段。尽管临床试验中 IPD 的共享意愿极高,但实际的数据共享率不理想。对期刊数据的调查表明,出版商对政策的执行情况较差或中等。平台提供的指标表明,绝大多数数据仍然未被请求。当被请求时,再利用的目的通常是二次分析和荟萃分析,很少是重新分析。最后,关注数据共享实际影响的研究很少,并且使用了替代指标,如引用指标。
目前缺乏关于 IPD 共享影响的证据基础,这给当前数据共享政策的实施带来了不确定性。需要高水平的证据来评估数据共享实践是否会增加医学研究的价值。