IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0097886.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

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

Abstract

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
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0097886
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0097886&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0097886?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sze Huey Tan & Keith R. Abrams & Sylwia Bujkiewicz, 2018. "Bayesian Multiparameter Evidence Synthesis to Inform Decision Making: A Case Study in Metastatic Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(7), pages 834-848, October.

    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. 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.
    2. Vishal Gupta & Brian Rongqing Han & Song-Hee Kim & Hyung Paek, 2020. "Maximizing Intervention Effectiveness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5576-5598, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.