Individual participant data sharing intentions and practices during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic: A rapid review

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Data & policy Pub Date : 2023-08-15 DOI:10.1017/dap.2023.26
P. Kamath, Nachiket Gudi, C. Staunton, A. Jacob, Oommen John
{"title":"Individual participant data sharing intentions and practices during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic: A rapid review","authors":"P. Kamath, Nachiket Gudi, C. Staunton, A. Jacob, Oommen John","doi":"10.1017/dap.2023.26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the irrational use of drugs in the absence of clinical management guidelines. Access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials aids the evidence synthesis approaches. We undertook a rapid review to infer IPD sharing intentions based on data availability statements by the principal investigators (PIs) of drug and vaccine trials in the context of COVID-19. Searches were conducted on PubMed (NCBI). We considered randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications from January 1, 2020, to October 31, 2021. IPD sharing intentions were inferred based on the data availability statements in the full-text manuscript publications. We included 180 articles. Of these, 81.7% (147/180) of the publications have arrived from the findings of the RCTs alone, 12.8% (23/180) of the publications were protocol publications alone, and 5.6% (10/180) of the RCTs had both published protocol and publication from the trial findings. We have reported IPD sharing intentions separately in RCT protocol publications (n = 23 + 10) and publications from RCT findings (n = 147 + 10). Among RCT protocol publications, one-third (11/33) of the PIs intended to share IPD. In fact, over half of the PIs (52.2%, 82/157) in their published RCT findings intended to share IPD. However, information to share about IPD was missing for 57.6% (19/33) of RCT protocols and 38.2% (60/157) of published RCT findings. Stakeholders must work together to ensure that overarching factors, such as legislation that governs clinical trial practices, are streamlined to bolster IPD sharing mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":93427,"journal":{"name":"Data & policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Data & policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2023.26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the irrational use of drugs in the absence of clinical management guidelines. Access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials aids the evidence synthesis approaches. We undertook a rapid review to infer IPD sharing intentions based on data availability statements by the principal investigators (PIs) of drug and vaccine trials in the context of COVID-19. Searches were conducted on PubMed (NCBI). We considered randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications from January 1, 2020, to October 31, 2021. IPD sharing intentions were inferred based on the data availability statements in the full-text manuscript publications. We included 180 articles. Of these, 81.7% (147/180) of the publications have arrived from the findings of the RCTs alone, 12.8% (23/180) of the publications were protocol publications alone, and 5.6% (10/180) of the RCTs had both published protocol and publication from the trial findings. We have reported IPD sharing intentions separately in RCT protocol publications (n = 23 + 10) and publications from RCT findings (n = 147 + 10). Among RCT protocol publications, one-third (11/33) of the PIs intended to share IPD. In fact, over half of the PIs (52.2%, 82/157) in their published RCT findings intended to share IPD. However, information to share about IPD was missing for 57.6% (19/33) of RCT protocols and 38.2% (60/157) of published RCT findings. Stakeholders must work together to ensure that overarching factors, such as legislation that governs clinical trial practices, are streamlined to bolster IPD sharing mechanisms.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2019冠状病毒病大流行期间个人参与者数据共享意图和做法:快速回顾
2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行导致临床用药不合理,缺乏临床管理指南。从临床试验中获取个体参与者数据(IPD)有助于证据合成方法。我们根据COVID-19背景下药物和疫苗试验的主要研究者(pi)的数据可用性声明进行了快速审查,以推断IPD共享意图。在PubMed (NCBI)上进行了搜索。我们纳入了2020年1月1日至2021年10月31日的随机对照试验(RCT)出版物。根据全文手稿出版物中的数据可用性声明推断IPD共享意图。我们纳入了180篇文章。其中,81.7%(147/180)的出版物来自单独的随机对照试验的结果,12.8%(23/180)的出版物是单独的方案出版物,5.6%(10/180)的随机对照试验同时发表了试验结果的方案和出版物。我们分别在RCT方案出版物(n = 23 + 10)和RCT结果出版物(n = 147 + 10)中报道了IPD共享意向。在RCT方案出版物中,三分之一(11/33)的pi打算共享IPD。事实上,在他们发表的RCT研究结果中,超过一半的pi(52.2%, 82/157)打算分享IPD。然而,57.6%(19/33)的RCT方案和38.2%(60/157)的已发表的RCT结果缺少关于IPD的信息共享。利益攸关方必须共同努力,确保精简管理临床试验实践的立法等首要因素,以加强IPD共享机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Determinants for university students’ location data sharing with public institutions during COVID-19: The Italian case Bus Rapid Transit: End of trend in Latin America? Accelerating and enhancing the generation of socioeconomic data to inform forced displacement policy and response “That is why users do not understand the maps we make for them”: Cartographic gaps between experts and domestic workers and the Right to the City Analysis of spatial–temporal validation patterns in Fortaleza’s public transport systems: a data mining approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1