ArticleLearning health systems2025
Medical researchers' perception of sharing of metadata from case report forms.
Article in Learning health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Medical researchers' perception of sharing of metadata from case report forms.Learning health systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Publishing medical metadata stored in case report forms (CRFs) is a prerequisite for the development of a learning health system (LHS) by fostering reuse of metadata and standardization in health research. The aim of our study was to investigate medical researchers' (MRs) willingness to share CRFs, to identify reasons for and against CRF sharing, and to determine if and under which conditions MRs might consider sharing CRF metadata via a public registry. Methods: We examined CRF data sharing commitments for 1842 interventional trials registered on the German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS) from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. We invited 1360 individuals registered as contacts on DRKS to participate in a web-based survey between May 10, 2022, and June 30, 2022. Results: Only 0.3% (5/1842) of data sharing commitments in DRKS included a plan to share blank CRFs. Survey results showed high support for CRF sharing. More than 70% of respondents (223/301) were willing to share their CRFs, and 83.7% (252/301) were interested in CRF reuse. The most frequently reported reason for CRF sharing was improvement of comparability and interpretability of patient data (244/301; 81.0%). The most frequently reported reason against CRF sharing was missing approval by the sponsor (160/301; 53.2%). Researchers conducting commercial trials were significantly less likely to share CRFs than those conducting noncommercial trials (63.3% vs. 76.2%, OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.92) and they were less likely to reuse CRFs (78.5% vs. 84.6%, OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.35-1.24). The most frequently mentioned prerequisite for publication of CRFs in a public registry was its trustworthiness (244/301, 81.1%). Conclusion: Data sharing commitments in DRKS revealed a low awareness of CRF sharing. Survey results showed generally strong support for CRF sharing, including the willingness to publish CRFs in a public registry, although legal and practical barriers were identified.
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.