ArticleResearch synthesis methods2021
Data sharing-trialists' plans at registration, attitudes, barriers and facilitators: A cohort study and cross-sectional survey.
Article in Research synthesis methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Investigating for Whom Brief Substance Use Interventions Are Most Effective: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023Pooled it
- Harmonising research data to support mental health services decision making and care planning: development of a data harmonisation platform in regional Australia.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- What helps and hinders reproducible research? Researchers' perspectives from a cross-disciplinary interview study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Practice of data sharing plans in clinical trial registrations and concordance between registered and published data sharing plans: a cross-sectional study.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Data-sharing and trustworthiness of trials evaluating cervical ripening in induction of labour: a meta-epidemiological study of randomised controlled trials.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Six solutions for clinical study data sharing in Germany.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Medical researchers' perception of sharing of metadata from case report forms.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- An assessment of the informative value of data sharing statements in clinical trial registries.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Responsibilities for receiving and using individual participant data.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
- The changing landscape of clinical trials in Australia.The Medical journal of Australia · 2023Article
- Article
- A guide to open science practices for animal research.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Many researchers say they'll share data - but don't.Nature · 2022Article
- Cancer patient survival can be parametrized to improve trial precision and reveal time-dependent therapeutic effects.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Promotion of data sharing needs more than an emergency: An analysis of trends across clinical trials registered on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- The landscape of COVID-19 trials in Australia.The Medical journal of Australia · 2021Article
- The Complex Quest of Preventing Obesity in Early Childhood: Describing Challenges and Solutions Through Collaboration and Innovation.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data unavailability impedes research transparency and is a major problem for individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses as it reduces statistical power, increases risk of bias, and may even preclude completion. The primary objectives of this study were to determine IPD sharing plans reported in recently registered clinical trial registration records, how data sharing commitment relates to clinical trial characteristics, and principal investigators' attitudes, motivations and barriers to data sharing. The secondary objective was to derive recommendations to overcome identified barriers to data sharing. This was a retrospective cohort study of all interventional trials registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) from 1 December 2018 to 30 November 2019, and an online cross-sectional survey of their principal investigators. In the cohort study of all clinical trials registered on the ANZCTR in the study period (n = 1517), commitment to share data was low (22%, 329/1517). In the cross-sectional survey (n = 281, 23% response rate), principal investigators showed strong support for the concept of data sharing (77%, 216/281) but a substantially lower intention to actually share data from their clinical trials (40%, 111/281). Major barriers to data sharing included lacking informed consent to share data, protecting participant confidentiality and preventing misinterpretation of data or misleading secondary analyses. There is a gap between high in-principle support for data sharing, and low in-practice intention from investigators to share data from their own clinical trials. Multiple pathways exist to bridge this gap by addressing the identified barriers to data sharing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.