Back

Evaluation of Clinical Trial Data Sharing Policy in Leading Medical Journals

Danchev, V.; Min, Y.; Borghi, J.; Baiocchi, M.; Ioannidis, J. P. A.

2020-05-11 health policy
10.1101/2020.05.07.20094656 medRxiv
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.

1
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
21.9%
2
Clinical Trials
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.9%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 19%
9.6%
4
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 3%
7.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.8%
6
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.0%
7
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.0%
8
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.0%
9
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 34%
3.2%
10
BMJ
51 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
11
Research Synthesis Methods
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
12
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
14
Nature Aging
60 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
15
BMC Medical Research Methodology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
16
F1000Research
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
17
Nature
645 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
18
Nature Human Behaviour
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
19
BMJ Open Quality
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
20
JAMA
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
21
Eurosurveillance
83 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
22
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
23
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
24
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.6%