IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sharing Individual Participant Data from Clinical Trials: An Opinion Survey Regarding the Establishment of a Central Repository


  • Catrin Tudur Smith
  • Kerry Dwan
  • Douglas G Altman
  • Mike Clarke
  • Richard Riley
  • Paula R Williamson


Background: Calls have been made for increased access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials, to ensure that complete evidence is available. However, despite the obvious benefits, progress towards this is frustratingly slow. In the meantime, many systematic reviews have already collected IPD from clinical trials. We propose that a central repository for these IPD should be established to ensure that these datasets are safeguarded and made available for use by others, building on the strengths and advantages of the collaborative groups that have been brought together in developing the datasets. Objective: Evaluate the level of support, and identify major issues, for establishing a central repository of IPD. Design: On-line survey with email reminders. Participants: 71 reviewers affiliated with the Cochrane Collaboration's IPD Meta-analysis Methods Group were invited to participate. Results: 30 (42%) invitees responded: 28 (93%) had been involved in an IPD review and 24 (80%) had been involved in a randomised trial. 25 (83%) agreed that a central repository was a good idea and 25 (83%) agreed that they would provide their IPD for central storage. Several benefits of a central repository were noted: safeguarding and standardisation of data, increased efficiency of IPD meta-analyses, knowledge advancement, and facilitating future clinical, and methodological research. The main concerns were gaining permission from trial data owners, uncertainty about the purpose of the repository, potential resource implications, and increased workload for IPD reviewers. Restricted access requiring approval, data security, anonymisation of data, and oversight committees were highlighted as issues under governance of the repository. Conclusion: There is support in this community of IPD reviewers, many of whom are also involved in clinical trials, for storing IPD in a central repository. Results from this survey are informing further work on developing a repository of IPD which is currently underway by our group.

Suggested Citation

  • Catrin Tudur Smith & Kerry Dwan & Douglas G Altman & Mike Clarke & Richard Riley & Paula R Williamson, 2014. "Sharing Individual Participant Data from Clinical Trials: An Opinion Survey Regarding the Establishment of a Central Repository," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-8, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0097886
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097886

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Hans-Georg Eichler & Eric Abadie & Alasdair Breckenridge & Hubert Leufkens & Guido Rasi, 2012. "Open Clinical Trial Data for All? A View from Regulators," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-2, April.
    2. Caroline J Savage & Andrew J Vickers, 2009. "Empirical Study of Data Sharing by Authors Publishing in PLoS Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(9), pages 1-3, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicola Milia & Alessandra Congiu & Paolo Anagnostou & Francesco Montinaro & Marco Capocasa & Emanuele Sanna & Giovanni Destro Bisol, 2012. "Mine, Yours, Ours? Sharing Data on Human Genetic Variation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-8, June.
    2. Michal Krawczyk & Ernesto Reuben, 2012. "(Un)Available upon Request: Field Experiment on Researchers' Willingness to Share Supplementary Materials," Natural Field Experiments 00689, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Bauke Schievink & Hiddo Lambers Heerspink & Hubert Leufkens & Dick De Zeeuw & Jarno Hoekman, 2014. "The Use of Surrogate Endpoints in Regulating Medicines for Cardio-Renal Disease: Opinions of Stakeholders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-7, September.
    4. Jillian C Wallis & Elizabeth Rolando & Christine L Borgman, 2013. "If We Share Data, Will Anyone Use Them? Data Sharing and Reuse in the Long Tail of Science and Technology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Genevieve Pham-Kanter & Darren E Zinner & Eric G Campbell, 2014. "Codifying Collegiality: Recent Developments in Data Sharing Policy in the Life Sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-8, September.
    6. Frederic Bouder & Dominic Way & Ragnar Löfstedt & Darrick Evensen, 2015. "Transparency in Europe: A Quantitative Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1210-1229, July.
    7. Andrew F Magee & Michael R May & Brian R Moore, 2014. "The Dawn of Open Access to Phylogenetic Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-10, October.
    8. Marjan Bakker & Jelte M Wicherts, 2014. "Outlier Removal and the Relation with Reporting Errors and Quality of Psychological Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-9, July.
    9. Stefan Stieglitz & Konstantin Wilms & Milad Mirbabaie & Lennart Hofeditz & Bela Brenger & Ania López & Stephanie Rehwald, 2020. "When are researchers willing to share their data? – Impacts of values and uncertainty on open data in academia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-20, July.
    10. Carol Tenopir & Suzie Allard & Kimberly Douglass & Arsev Umur Aydinoglu & Lei Wu & Eleanor Read & Maribeth Manoff & Mike Frame, 2011. "Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(6), pages 1-21, June.
    11. Vishal Gupta & Brian Rongqing Han & Song-Hee Kim & Hyung Paek, 2020. "Maximizing Intervention Effectiveness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5576-5598, December.
    12. Alawi A Alsheikh-Ali & Waqas Qureshi & Mouaz H Al-Mallah & John P A Ioannidis, 2011. "Public Availability of Published Research Data in High-Impact Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-4, September.
    13. Bryan T Drew & Romina Gazis & Patricia Cabezas & Kristen S Swithers & Jiabin Deng & Roseana Rodriguez & Laura A Katz & Keith A Crandall & David S Hibbett & Douglas E Soltis, 2013. "Lost Branches on the Tree of Life," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-5, September.
    14. Jessica L Couture & Rachael E Blake & Gavin McDonald & Colette L Ward, 2018. "A funder-imposed data publication requirement seldom inspired data sharing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, July.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0097886. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (plosone). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.