61
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sharing clinical trial data on patient level: Opportunities and challenges

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In recent months one of the most controversially discussed topics among regulatory agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, journal editors, and academia has been the sharing of patient-level clinical trial data. Several projects have been started such as the European Medicines Agency´s (EMA) “proactive publication of clinical trial data”, the BMJ open data campaign, or the AllTrials initiative. The executive director of the EMA, Dr. Guido Rasi, has recently announced that clinical trial data on patient level will be published from 2014 onwards (although it has since been delayed). The EMA draft policy on proactive access to clinical trial data was published at the end of June 2013 and open for public consultation until the end of September 2013. These initiatives will change the landscape of drug development and publication of medical research. They provide unprecedented opportunities for research and research synthesis, but pose new challenges for regulatory authorities, sponsors, scientific journals, and the public. Besides these general aspects, data sharing also entails intricate biostatistical questions such as problems of multiplicity. An important issue in this respect is the interpretation of multiple statistical analyses, both prospective and retrospective. Expertise in biostatistics is needed to assess the interpretation of such multiple analyses, for example, in the context of regulatory decision-making by optimizing procedural guidance and sophisticated analysis methods.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Reproducible research: moving toward research the public can really trust.

          A community of scientists arrives at the truth by independently verifying new observations. In this time-honored process, journals serve 2 principal functions: evaluative and editorial. In their evaluative function, they winnow out research that is unlikely to stand up to independent verification; this task is accomplished by peer review. In their editorial function, they try to ensure transparent (by which we mean clear, complete, and unambiguous) and objective descriptions of the research. Both the evaluative and editorial functions go largely unnoticed by the public--the former only draws public attention when a journal publishes fraudulent research. However, both play a critical role in the progress of science. This paper is about both functions. We describe the evaluative processes we use and announce a new policy to help the scientific community evaluate, and build upon, the research findings that we publish.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Preparing raw clinical data for publication: guidance for journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers

            Many peer reviewed journals now require authors to be prepared to share their raw, unprocessed data with other scientists or state the availability of raw data in published articles, but little information on how such data should be prepared for sharing has emerged. Iain Hrynaszkiewicz and colleagues propose a minimum standard for de-identifying datasets to ensure patient privacy when sharing clinical research data
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Whose data set is it anyway? Sharing raw data from randomized trials

              Background Sharing of raw research data is common in many areas of medical research, genomics being perhaps the most well-known example. In the clinical trial community investigators routinely refuse to share raw data from a randomized trial without giving a reason. Discussion Data sharing benefits numerous research-related activities: reproducing analyses; testing secondary hypotheses; developing and evaluating novel statistical methods; teaching; aiding design of future trials; meta-analysis; and, possibly, preventing error, fraud and selective reporting. Clinical trialists, however, sometimes appear overly concerned with being scooped and with misrepresentation of their work. Both possibilities can be avoided with simple measures such as inclusion of the original trialists as co-authors on any publication resulting from data sharing. Moreover, if we treat any data set as belonging to the patients who comprise it, rather than the investigators, such concerns fall away. Conclusion Technological developments, particularly the Internet, have made data sharing generally a trivial logistical problem. Data sharing should come to be seen as an inherent part of conducting a randomized trial, similar to the way in which we consider ethical review and publication of study results. Journals and funding bodies should insist that trialists make raw data available, for example, by publishing data on the Web. If the clinical trial community continues to fail with respect to data sharing, we will only strengthen the public perception that we do clinical trials to benefit ourselves, not our patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Biom J
                Biom J
                bimj
                Biometrical Journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift
                Blackwell Publishing Ltd (Oxford, UK )
                0323-3847
                1521-4036
                January 2015
                18 June 2014
                : 57
                : 1
                : 8-26
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna Spitalgasse 23, 1090, Vienna, Austria
                [2 ]European Medicines Agency (EMA) 7 Westferry Circus – Canary Wharf, London, E14 4HB, UK
                [3 ]BMJ London, WC1H 9JR, UK
                [4 ]AGES – Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Federal Office for Safety in Health Care Traisengasse 5, 1200, Vienna, Austria
                [5 ]Department of Statistics and Operations Research, The Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University Tel Aviv, 6997801, Israel
                [6 ]Clinical Trials Consulting and Training 53 Portway, North Marston, Buckinghamshire, MK18 3PL, UK
                Author notes
                *Corresponding author: e-mail: Franz.Koenig@ 123456meduniwien.ac.at , Phone: +-43-1-404007480, Fax: +43-1-404007477
                Article
                10.1002/bimj.201300283
                4314673
                24942505
                2749b149-99b6-414a-9ed4-00ac1cdca6e1
                © 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 11 December 2013
                : 20 March 2014
                : 18 April 2014
                Categories
                Panel Forum

                Quantitative & Systems biology
                ema draft policy/0070,open access to clinical trial data,raw data,secondary research,transparency,validation

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                68
                1
                35
                0
                Smart Citations
                68
                1
                35
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content129

                Cited by20

                Most referenced authors196