Data sharing-trialists' plans at registration, attitudes, barriers and facilitators: A cohort study and cross-sectional survey

Cancer researchers' experiences with and perceptions of research data sharing: Results of a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Despite wide recognition of the benefits of sharing research data, public availability rates have not increased substantially in oncology or medicine more broadly over the last decade.

METHODS

We surveyed 285 cancer researchers to determine their prior experience with sharing data and views on known drivers and inhibitors.

RESULTS

We found that 45% of respondents had shared some data from their most recent empirical publication, with respondents who typically studied non-human research participants, or routinely worked with human genomic data, more likely to share than those who did not. A third of respondents added that they had previously shared data privately, with 74% indicating that doing so had also led to authorship opportunities or future collaborations for them. Journal and funder policies were reported to be the biggest general drivers toward sharing, whereas commercial interests, agreements with industrial sponsors and institutional policies were the biggest prohibitors. We show that researchers' decisions about whether to share data are also likely to be influenced by participants' desires.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey suggests that increased promotion and support by research institutions, alongside greater championing of data sharing by journals and funders, may motivate more researchers in oncology to share their data.

Formalistic data and code availability policy in high-profile medical journals and pervasive policy-practice gaps in published articles: A meta-research study

BACKGROUND

Poor data and code (DAC) sharing undermines open science principles. This study evaluates the stringency of DAC availability policies in high-profile medical journals and identifies policy-practice gaps (PPG) in published articles.

METHODS

DAC availability policies of 931 Q1 medical journals (Clarivate JCR 2021) were evaluated, with PPGs quantified across 3,191 articles from The BMJ, JAMA, NEJM, and The Lancet.

RESULTS

Only 9.1% (85/931) of journals mandated DAC sharing and availability statements, with 70.6% of these lacking mechanisms to verify authenticity, and 61.2% allowing publication despite invalid sharing. Secondary analysis revealed a disproportionate distribution of policies across subspecialties, with 18.6% (11/59) of subspecialties having >20% journals with mandated policies. Journal impact factors exhibited positive correlations with the stringency of availability statement policies (ρ = 0.20, p < 0.001) but not with sharing policies (ρ = 0.01, p = 0.737). Among the 3,191 articles, PPGs were observed in over 90% of cases. Specifically, 33.7% lacked DAC availability statements, 23.3% refused sharing (58.4% of which without justification in public statements), and 13.5% declared public sharing, with 39.0% being unreachable. Finally, only 0.5% achieved full computational reproducibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Formalistic policies and prevalent PPGs undermine DAC transparency, necessitating a supportive publication ecosystem that empowers authors to uphold scientific responsibility and integrity.

Conceptualizing, operationalizing, and utilizing equity, diversity, and inclusion in clinical trials: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) are social constructs which when used in clinical trials, or clinical research broadly help generate the highest quality evidence for interventions in the populations most likely to benefit. However, the incorporation of these constructs is unclear and inconsistent. This scoping review sought to understand how EDI is applied in clinical trials with broader application across clinical research.

METHODS

We reviewed literature from PubMed and Google Scholar, selecting studies 1) published from 2000 to 2023, 2) literature which described concepts, tools, metrics, or frameworks, and 3) provided information on conceptualization, operationalization (measuring) or utilization (analyzing). Additionally, internet searches were conducted to identify websites of research partners such as government institutions, funders, regulators and publishers across the research lifecycle. Websites retrieved were included for our review of EDI consideration (either concepts or statements) outside but impacting upon the published literature.

RESULTS

We reviewed 2385 titles and abstracts and included 75 (3%) in analyses. From gray literature searches of 269 identified key research partners, additional 49 records were included. Studies conceptualized EDI as interconnected rather than distinct constructs. These concepts were often reinforcing, such as efforts to enhance diversity which also promote equity and foster inclusion. Regarding operationalization, 12 frameworks, 20 tools/metrics were identified for EDI assessment across the research lifecycle. These metrics were primarily used for reporting EDI data, and utilization across research lifecycle remains limited. Among research partners, a third of publishers (6 of 20) had any EDI considerations; followed by 2 of 19 trial registries, 12 of 44 research funders, 7 of 60 journals, and none of ethics committee and data repositories reported statements on EDI.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights that a range of EDI relevant tools, frameworks and metrics, each with their unique strengths and limitations. We found a wider adoption of EDI considerations by research partners is still lacking. Future research could explore the impact of different EDI criteria on trial outcomes and the generalizability of trial results.

Medical researchers' perception of sharing of metadata from case report forms

Introduction

Publishing medical metadata stored in case report forms (CRFs) is a prerequisite for the development of a learning health system (LHS) by fostering reuse of metadata and standardization in health research. The aim of our study was to investigate medical researchers' (MRs) willingness to share CRFs, to identify reasons for and against CRF sharing, and to determine if and under which conditions MRs might consider sharing CRF metadata via a public registry.

Methods

We examined CRF data sharing commitments for 1842 interventional trials registered on the German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS) from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. We invited 1360 individuals registered as contacts on DRKS to participate in a web-based survey between May 10, 2022, and June 30, 2022.

Results

Only 0.3% (5/1842) of data sharing commitments in DRKS included a plan to share blank CRFs. Survey results showed high support for CRF sharing. More than 70% of respondents (223/301) were willing to share their CRFs, and 83.7% (252/301) were interested in CRF reuse. The most frequently reported reason for CRF sharing was improvement of comparability and interpretability of patient data (244/301; 81.0%). The most frequently reported reason against CRF sharing was missing approval by the sponsor (160/301; 53.2%). Researchers conducting commercial trials were significantly less likely to share CRFs than those conducting noncommercial trials (63.3% vs. 76.2%, OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.92) and they were less likely to reuse CRFs (78.5% vs. 84.6%, OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.35-1.24). The most frequently mentioned prerequisite for publication of CRFs in a public registry was its trustworthiness (244/301, 81.1%).

Conclusion

Data sharing commitments in DRKS revealed a low awareness of CRF sharing. Survey results showed generally strong support for CRF sharing, including the willingness to publish CRFs in a public registry, although legal and practical barriers were identified.

Ethics practices associated with reusing health data: an assessment of patient registries

BACKGROUND

As routinely collected patient data have become increasingly accessible over the years, more attention has been directed at the ethics of using such data for research. Patient data is often available to researchers through patient registries that typically collect data of patients with a specific condition. While ethical guidelines for using patient data are presented frequently in the literature, it is currently unknown how patient registries implement the recommendations from these guidelines in practice and how they communicate their practices. In this project, we assessed to what extent a sample of 51 patient registries provides information about a range of ethics practices.

METHODS

We searched for patient registries in the resource database of the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP). Our ethics reporting checklist was based on three sources: the Registry Evaluation and Quality Standards Tool (REQueST), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) guide for good registry practices, and a systematic review of the principles and norms related to health data sharing by Kalkman and colleagues. The checklist includes 26 questions about five ethics components: governance, conflicts of interest, informed consent, privacy and data protection, and use-and-access.

RESULTS

We found substantial heterogeneity in the way patient registries provide information about ethics practices. Patient registries often mentioned their governance structure and any potential conflicts of interests but typically did not describe the responsibilities and rights allocated to their funders. Information about informed consent was often provided to patients, but the available documents often lacked relevant information like the benefits and risks of participation. Privacy and data protection and use-and-access policies were typically discussed but not very concretely.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that registries typically provide information about key ethics practices such as governance, conflicts of interest, informed consent, privacy and data protection, and use-and-access procedures, but this information is often not as detailed as recommended in existing guidelines. The ethics reporting checklist we designed could be helpful for the ethical assessments of patient registries and other types of registries in the future as well as for self-assessment of registries aiming to improve their ethics practices.

Data sharing policies across health research globally: Cross-sectional meta-research study

BACKGROUND

Data sharing improves the value, synthesis, and integrity of research, but rates are low. Data sharing might be improved if data sharing policies were prominent and actionable at every stage of research. We aimed to systematically describe the epidemiology of data sharing policies across the health research lifecycle.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional analysis of the data sharing policies of the largest health research funders, all national ethics committees, all clinical trial registries, the highest-impact medical journals, and all medical research data repositories. Stakeholders' official websites, online reports, and other records were reviewed up to May 2022. The strength and characteristics of their data sharing policies were assessed, including their policies on data sharing intention statements (a.k.a. data accessibility statements) and on data sharing specifically for coronavirus disease studies. Data were manually extracted in duplicate, and policies were descriptively analysed by their stakeholder and characteristics.

RESULTS

Nine hundred and thirty-five eligible stakeholders were identified: 110 funders, 124 ethics committees, 18 trial registries, 273 journals, and 410 data repositories. Data sharing was required by 41% (45/110) of funders, no ethics committees or trial registries, 19% (52/273) of journals and 6% (24/410) of data repositories. Among funder types, a higher proportion of private (63%, 35/55) and philanthropic (67%, 4/6) funders required data sharing than public funders (12%, 6/49).

CONCLUSION

Data sharing requirements, and even recommendations, were insufficient across health research. Where data sharing was required or recommended, there was limited guidance on implementation. We describe multiple pathways to improve the implementation of data sharing. Public funders and ethics committees are two stakeholders with particularly important untapped opportunities.

Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies

Sharing research data has great potential to benefit science and society. However, data sharing is still not common practice. Since public research funding agencies have a particular impact on research and researchers, the question arises: Are public funding agencies morally obligated to promote data sharing? We argue from a research ethics perspective that public funding agencies have several pro tanto obligations requiring them to promote data sharing. However, there are also pro tanto obligations that speak against promoting data sharing in general as well as with regard to particular instruments of such promotion. We examine and weigh these obligations and conclude that all things considered funders ought to promote the sharing of data. Even the instrument of mandatory data sharing policies can be justified under certain conditions.

Vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labour: An individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Induction of labour (IOL) is common practice and different methods carry different effectiveness and safety profiles.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes of IOL with vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone using individual participant data from randomised clinical trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched from inception to March 2023: CINAHL Plus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trial Register, Ovid Embase, Ovid Emcare, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with viable singleton gestation, no language restrictions, and all published and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

An individual participant data meta-analysis was carried out.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten of 52 eligible trials provided individual participant data, of which two were excluded after checking data integrity. The remaining eight trials compared low-dose vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone, including 4180 women undergoing IOL, which represents 32.8% of all participants in the published RCTs. Of these, 2077 were assigned to low-dose vaginal misoprostol and 2103 were assigned to vaginal dinoprostone. Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, low-dose vaginal misoprostol had a comparable rate of vaginal birth. Composite adverse perinatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, composite adverse maternal outcomes were significantly lower with low-dose vaginal misoprostol (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98, P = 0.03, I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose vaginal misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone for IOL are comparable in terms of effectiveness and perinatal safety. However, low-dose vaginal misoprostol is likely to lead to a lower rate of composite adverse maternal outcomes than vaginal dinoprostone.

An assessment of the informative value of data sharing statements in clinical trial registries

BACKGROUND

The provision of data sharing statements (DSS) for clinical trials has been made mandatory by different stakeholders. DSS are a device to clarify whether there is intention to share individual participant data (IPD). What is missing is a detailed assessment of whether DSS are providing clear and understandable information about the conditions for data sharing of IPD for secondary use.

METHODS

A random sample of 200 COVID-19 clinical trials with explicit DSS was drawn from the ECRIN clinical research metadata repository. The DSS were assessed and classified, by two experienced experts and one assessor with less experience in data sharing (DS), into different categories (unclear, no sharing, no plans, yes but vague, yes on request, yes with specified storage location, yes but with complex conditions).

RESULTS

Between the two experts the agreement was moderate to substantial (kappa=0.62, 95% CI [0.55, 0.70]). Agreement considerably decreased when these experts were compared with a third person who was less experienced and trained in data sharing ("assessor") (kappa=0.33, 95% CI [0.25, 0.41]; 0.35, 95% CI [0.27, 0.43]). Between the two experts and under supervision of an independent moderator, a consensus was achieved for those cases, where both experts had disagreed, and the result was used as "gold standard" for further analysis. At least some degree of willingness of DS (data sharing) was expressed in 63.5% (127/200) cases. Of these cases, around one quarter (31/127) were vague statements of support for data sharing but without useful detail. In around half of the cases (60/127) it was stated that IPD could be obtained by request. Only in in slightly more than 10% of the cases (15/127) it was stated that the IPD would be transferred to a specific data repository. In the remaining cases (21/127), a more complex regime was described or referenced, which could not be allocated to one of the three previous groups. As a result of the consensus meetings, the classification system was updated.

CONCLUSION

The study showed that the current DSS that imply possible data sharing are often not easy to interpret, even by relatively experienced staff. Machine based interpretation, which would be necessary for any practical application, is currently not possible. Machine learning and / or natural language processing techniques might improve machine actionability, but would represent a very substantial investment of research effort. The cheaper and easier option would be for data providers, data requestors, funders and platforms to adopt a clearer, more structured and more standardised approach to specifying, providing and collecting DSS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol for the study was pre-registered on ZENODO ( https://zenodo.org/record/7064624#.Y4DIAHbMJD8 ).

Investigating for Whom Brief Substance Use Interventions Are Most Effective: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis

Prior research suggests that brief interventions (BIs) for alcohol and other drug use may vary in effectiveness across patient sociodemographic factors. The objective of this individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis was to explore for whom BIs delivered in general healthcare settings are more or less effective. We examined variability in BI effects by patient age, sex, employment, education, relationship status, and baseline severity of substance use using a two-stage IPD meta-analysis approach. All trials included in a parent aggregate data meta-analysis (k = 116) were invited to contribute IPD, and 29 trials provided patient-level data (12,074 participants). Among females, BIs led to significant reductions in binge alcohol consumption ([Formula: see text] = 0.09, 95% CI [0.03, 0.14]), frequency of alcohol consumption ([Formula: see text] = 0.10, 95% CI [0.03, 0.17]), and alcohol-related consequences ([Formula: see text] = 0.16, 95% CI [0.08, 0.25]), as well as greater substance use treatment utilization ([Formula: see text] = 0.25, 95% CI [0.21, 0.30]). BIs yielded larger reductions in frequency of alcohol consumption at 3-month follow-up for individuals with less than a high school level education ([Formula: see text] = 0.16, 95% CI [0.09, 0.22]). Given evidence demonstrating modest BI effects on alcohol use and mixed or null findings for BI effects on other drug use, BI research should continue to investigate potential drivers of effect magnitude and variation.  PROTOCOL REGISTRATION DETAILS: The protocol for this review was pre-registered in PROSPERO #CRD42018086832 and the analysis plan was pre-registered in OSF: osf.io/m48g6.

Open video data sharing in developmental science and clinical practice

In behavioral research and clinical practice video data has rarely been shared or pooled across sites due to ethical concerns of confidentiality, although the need of shared large-scaled datasets remains increasing. This demand is even more imperative when data-heavy computer-based approaches are involved. To share data while abiding by privacy protection rules, a critical question arises whether efforts at data de-identification reduce data utility? We addressed this question by showcasing an established and video-based diagnostic tool for detecting neurological deficits. We demonstrated for the first time that, for analyzing infant neuromotor functions, pseudonymization by face-blurring video recordings is a viable approach. The redaction did not affect classification accuracy for either human assessors or artificial intelligence methods, suggesting an adequate and easy-to-apply solution for sharing behavioral video data. Our work shall encourage more innovative solutions to share and merge stand-alone video datasets into large data pools to advance science and public health.

Optimizing cord management for each preterm baby - Challenges of collating individual participant data and recommendations for future collaborative research

The optimal cord management strategy at birth for each preterm baby is still unknown, despite more than 100 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken on this question. To address this, we brought together all RCTs examining cord management strategies at preterm birth in the iCOMP (individual participant data on COrd Management at Preterm birth) Collaboration, to perform an individual participant data network meta-analysis. In this paper, we describe the trials and tribulations around obtaining individual participant data to resolve controversies around cord clamping, and we derive key recommendations for future collaborative research in perinatology. To reliably answer outstanding questions, future cord management research needs to be collaborative and coordinated, by aligning core protocol elements, ensuring quality and reporting standards are met, and carefully considering and reporting on vulnerable sub-populations. The iCOMP Collaboration is an example of the power of collaboration to address priority research questions, and ultimately improve neonatal outcomes worldwide.

Sharing study materials in health and medical research

Making study materials available allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the scientific literature. Sharing can take many forms and include a wide variety of outputs including code and data. Biomedical research can benefit from increased transparency but faces unique challenges for sharing, for instance, confidentiality concerns around participants' medical data. Both general and specialised repositories exist to aid in sharing most study materials. Sharing may also require skills and resources to ensure that it is done safely and effectively. Educating researchers on how to best share their materials, and properly rewarding these practices, requires action from a variety of stakeholders including journals, funders and research institutions.

A guide to open science practices for animal research

Translational biomedical research relies on animal experiments and provides the underlying proof of practice for clinical trials, which places an increased duty of care on translational researchers to derive the maximum possible output from every experiment performed. The implementation of open science practices has the potential to initiate a change in research culture that could improve the transparency and quality of translational research in general, as well as increasing the audience and scientific reach of published research. However, open science has become a buzzword in the scientific community that can often miss mark when it comes to practical implementation. In this Essay, we provide a guide to open science practices that can be applied throughout the research process, from study design, through data collection and analysis, to publication and dissemination, to help scientists improve the transparency and quality of their work. As open science practices continue to evolve, we also provide an online toolbox of resources that we will update continually.

Open science has become a buzzword in the scientific community that too often misses the practical application for individual researchers. This Essay, provides a guide to choosing the most appropriate tools to make animal research more transparent.

Promotion of data sharing needs more than an emergency: An analysis of trends across clinical trials registered on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform

BACKGROUND

A growing body of evidence shows that sharing health research data with other researchers for secondary analyses can contribute to better health. This is especially important in the context of a public health emergency when stopping a pandemic depends on accelerating science.

METHODS

We analysed the information on data sharing collected by the 18 clinical trial registries included in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to understand the reporting of data sharing plans and which studies were and were not planning to share data. Data on sponsor and funder organisations, country of recruitment, registry, and condition of study were standardised to compare the sharing of information and data across these facets. This represents the first ever comprehensive study of the complete data set contained in ICTRP.

RESULTS

Across 132,545 studies registered between January 2019 and December 2020, 11.2% of studies stated that individual patient data (IPD) would be shared. Plans to share IPD varied across the 18 contributing registries- information on data sharing was missing in >95% of study records across 7/18 registries. In the 26,851 (20.3%) studies that were funded or sponsored by a commercial entity, intention to share IPD was similar to those that were not (11.5% vs 11.2%). Intention to share IPD was most common in studies recruiting across both high-income and low- or middle-income countries (21.4%) and in those recruiting in Sub-Saharan Africa (50.3%). Studies of COVID-19 had similar levels of data sharing to studies of other non-pandemic diseases in 2020 (13.7% vs 11.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of planned IPD sharing vary between clinical trial registries and economic regions, and are similar whether commercial or non-commercial agencies are involved. Despite many calls to action, plans to share IPD have not increased significantly and remain below 14% for diseases causing public health emergencies.

Cancer patient survival can be parametrized to improve trial precision and reveal time-dependent therapeutic effects

Individual participant data (IPD) from oncology clinical trials is invaluable for identifying factors that influence trial success and failure, improving trial design and interpretation, and comparing pre-clinical studies to clinical outcomes. However, the IPD used to generate published survival curves are not generally publicly available. We impute survival IPD from ~500 arms of Phase 3 oncology trials (representing ~220,000 events) and find that they are well fit by a two-parameter Weibull distribution. Use of Weibull functions with overall survival significantly increases the precision of small arms typical of early phase trials: analysis of a 50-patient trial arm using parametric forms is as precise as traditional, non-parametric analysis of a 90-patient arm. We also show that frequent deviations from the Cox proportional hazards assumption, particularly in trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors, arise from time-dependent therapeutic effects. Trial duration therefore has an underappreciated impact on the likelihood of success.

Analysis of more than 150 Phase 3 oncology clinical trials supports parametric statistical analysis, significantly increasing the precision of small early-phase trials and relating deviations from the Cox proportional hazards model to trial duration.

The Complex Quest of Preventing Obesity in Early Childhood: Describing Challenges and Solutions Through Collaboration and Innovation

Childhood obesity remains a major public health issue and priority area for action. Promisingly, obesity prevention interventions in the first 2000 days of life have shown modest effectiveness in improving health behaviours and healthy weight status in children. Yet, researchers in this field face several challenges. This can lead to research waste and impede progress towards delivering effective, scalable solutions. In this perspective article, we describe some of the key challenges in early childhood obesity prevention and outline innovative and collaborative solutions to overcome these. Combining these solutions will accelerate the generation of high-quality evidence that can be implemented into policy and practice.