ReviewBMJ global health2026
Collective action for responsible global health data sharing and use.
Review in BMJ global health, 2026. 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.
- Article
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
Sharing data and biospecimens is both a scientific imperative and an ethical duty in research and public health, yet global asymmetries in capacity and power risk perpetuating inequality rather than alleviating it. To genuinely advance global health equity, data sharing efficiency should be measured not by the volume or speed of data transfer, but by the deliberate flow of benefits, capacity and decision-making authority to structurally disadvantaged regions. This requires a complementary shift. First, advanced partners must move from directing to enabling, focusing on building local technical, analytical and governance capacities to ensure solutions are rooted where they are needed most. Second, less-resourced actors must reframe data sharing not as a risky obligation, but as an opportunity for leadership-actively shaping research agendas and harnessing the power of open science. Consequently, sharing mandates must be explicitly tied to tangible interventions and demonstrated successes in improving health outcomes, supported by sovereign, federated data systems and reformed academic incentives that valorise capacity building and equitable collaboration as core research outputs. We, therefore, urge health researchers, funders, publishers and agencies to collectively transform sharing of data and biological materials into an equity-centred process that actively rectifies historical power imbalances. By shifting emphasis from the data themselves to the people, systems and processes that translate data into action, we can ensure sharing serves as a true bridge to equity-one that actively advances global health for all.
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.