Evaluation of Clinical Trial Data Sharing Policy in Leading Medical Journals
Danchev, V.; Min, Y.; Borghi, J.; Baiocchi, M.; Ioannidis, J. P. A.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe benefits from responsible sharing of individual-participant data (IPD) from clinical studies are well recognized, but stakeholders often disagree on how to align those benefits with privacy risks, costs, and incentives for clinical trialists and sponsors. Recently, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) required a data sharing statement (DSS) from submissions reporting clinical trials effective July 1, 2018. We set out to evaluate the implementation of the policy in three leading medical journals (JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)). MethodsA MEDLINE/PubMed search of clinical trials published in the three journals between July 1, 2018 and April 4, 2020 identified 487 eligible trials (JAMA n = 112, Lancet n = 147, NEJM n = 228). Two reviewers evaluated each of the 487 articles independently. Captured outcomes were declared data availability, data type, access, conditions and reasons for data (un)availability, and funding sources. Findings334 (68.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 64.1%-72.5%) articles declared data sharing, with non-industry NIH-funded trials exhibiting the highest rates of declared data sharing (88.9%, 95% CI, 80.0%-97.8) and industry-funded trials the lowest (61.3%, 95% CI, 54.3%-68.3). However, only two IPD datasets were actually deidentified and publicly available as of April 10, 2020. The remaining were supposedly accessible via request to authors (42.8%, 143/334), repository (26.6%, 89/334), and company (23.4%, 78/334). Among the 89 articles declaring to store IPD in repositories, only 17 articles (19.1%) deposited data, mostly due to embargo and regulatory approval. Embargo was set in 47.3% (158/334) of data-sharing articles, and in half of them the period exceeded 1 year or was unspecified. InterpretationMost trials published in JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM after the implementation of the ICMJE policy declared their intent to make clinical data available. However, a wide gap between declared and actual data sharing exists. To improve transparency and data reuse, journals should promote the use of unique pointers to dataset location and standardized choices for embargo periods and access requirements. All data, code, and materials used in this analysis are available on OSF at https://osf.io/s5vbg/.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Re-use of trial data in the first 10 years of the data-sharing policy of the Annals of Internal Medicine: a survey of published studies 95%
- Results dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centres was delayed and incomplete 94%
- Results reporting for clinical trials led by medical universities and university hospitals in the Nordic countries was often missing or delayed 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- A modular pipeline for natural language processing-screened human abstraction of a pragmatic trial outcome from electronic health records 90%
- Evidence Supporting EMA Drug Approvals (2020-2023): A Cross-Sectional Study of Trial Design and Outcomes 89%
- Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: a scoping review 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 94%
- How Informative Were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov 94%
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting FDA Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents Over Three Decades, 1995-2017: Cross-Sectional Analysis 88%
- Low adherence to existing model reporting guidelines by commonly used clinical prediction models 88%
- COVID-19 outcomes, risk factors and associations by race: a comprehensive analysis using electronic health records data in Michigan Medicine 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.