Evidence mapPaperPMID 36071689Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2022

Ethics challenges in sharing data from pragmatic clinical trials.

Stephanie R Morain, Juli Bollinger, Kevin Weinfurt, Jeremy Sugarman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. "A Double-Edged Sword": A Brief History of Genomic Data Governance and Genetic Researcher Perspectives on Data Sharing.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Stephanie R MorainJohns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7278-7517
Juli BollingerJohns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Kevin WeinfurtDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0624-7448
Jeremy SugarmanJohns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7022-8332

Funding

NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory-Coordinating Center (U24)U24AT009676 · NCCIH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LESLEY H CURTIS, Adrian Hernandez · 2017 to 2026
$21.5M
HEAL Collaboratory Resource Coordinating Center (PRISM) (U24): Bioethics SupplementU24AT010961 · NCCIH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI CURTIS, LESLEY H, HERNANDEZ, ADRIAN · 2019 to 2021
$6.4M
NCCIH NIH HHS U24 AT009676NCCIH NIH HHS U24 AT010961
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous arguments have been advanced for broadly sharing de-identified, participant-level clinical trials data, and trial sponsors and journals are increasingly requiring it. However, data sharing in pragmatic clinical trials presents ethical challenges related to the use of waivers or alterations of informed consent for some pragmatic clinical trials and corresponding limitations of informed consent to guide sharing decisions; the potential for data sharing in pragmatic clinical trials to present risks not only for individual patient-subjects, but also for health systems and the clinicians within them; sharing of data from electronic health records instead of data newly collected for research purposes; and researchers' limited capacity to control sensitive data within an electronic health record and potential implications of such limits for meeting obligations inherent to Certificates of Confidentiality. These challenges raise questions about the extent to which traditional research ethics governance structures are capable of guiding decisions about pragmatic clinical trial data sharing. This article identifies and examines these ethical challenges for pragmatic clinical trial data sharing. We suggest several areas for future empirical scholarship, including the need to identify patient and public attitudes regarding pragmatic clinical trial data sharing as well as to assess the demand for pragmatic clinical trial data and the correspondingly likely benefit of such sharing. Further conceptual work is also needed to explore how requirements to respect patient-subjects about whom data are shared in the context of pragmatic clinical trials should be understood, particularly in the absence of informed consent for initial research activities, and the appropriate balance between promoting the generation of socially valuable knowledge and respecting autonomy.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchInformation DisseminationElectronic Health RecordsHumansInformed ConsentResearch Personneldata sharingethicsindividual participant dataPragmatic clinical trials

Identifiers

PMID36071689
PMCPMC10267884

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.