Open letter: European Medicines Agency should remove barriers to access clinical trial data

What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The foundation of health and medical research is data. Data sharing facilitates the progress of research and strengthens science. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there are seemingly no evidence-based incentives that promote data sharing.

METHODS

A systematic review (registration: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6PZ5E) of the health and medical research literature was used to uncover any evidence-based incentives, with pre- and post-empirical data that examined data sharing rates. We were also interested in quantifying and classifying the number of opinion pieces on the importance of incentives, the number observational studies that analysed data sharing rates and practices, and strategies aimed at increasing data sharing rates.

RESULTS

Only one incentive (using open data badges) has been tested in health and medical research that examined data sharing rates. The number of opinion pieces (n = 85) out-weighed the number of article-testing strategies (n = 76), and the number of observational studies exceeded them both (n = 106).

CONCLUSIONS

Given that data is the foundation of evidence-based health and medical research, it is paradoxical that there is only one evidence-based incentive to promote data sharing. More well-designed studies are needed in order to increase the currently low rates of data sharing.

Published and unpublished evidence in coverage decision-making for pharmaceuticals in Europe: existing approaches and way forward

BACKGROUND

Dissemination bias occurs when only some results emerging from clinical research reach their intended audience in the knowledge translation process. Given that coverage decisions increasingly rely on evidence, it is important to explore the types of evidence considered. This paper aimed to examine the evidence base used by regulatory institutions involved in pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals in a broad range of European countries, as well as their awareness of and approach towards dissemination bias.

METHODS

A mixed methods approach was adopted. Regulatory documents and published literature were identified in systematic searches and relevant documents were analysed. An online survey was carried out to verify and expand insights.

RESULTS

Forty-two relevant regulatory documents and 10 publications were included. The survey had a 35% response rate, yielding valid responses for 13 countries. A fragmented impression was obtained for most countries indicating a general lack of transparency regarding both processes of decision-making and approaches towards unpublished information. Dissemination bias was rarely consistently considered. Practices for the identification and inclusion of all available evidence varied considerably, as did the influence of missing evidence on decision-making. Differences were often attributable to the regulatory context and/or institutional principles.

CONCLUSIONS

Best practice is difficult to generalize given the identified variations. Individual exemplary practices support the necessity for institutional exchange at international level. Increased institutional commitment to transparency of methods and processes should be advocated.

Sharing Public Health Research Data: Toward the Development of Ethical Data-Sharing Practice in Low- and Middle-Income Settings

It is increasingly recognized that effective and appropriate data sharing requires the development of models of good data-sharing practice capable of taking seriously both the potential benefits to be gained and the importance of ensuring that the rights and interests of participants are respected and that risk of harms is minimized. Calls for the greater sharing of individual-level data from biomedical and public health research are receiving support among researchers and research funders. Despite its potential importance, data sharing presents important ethical, social, and institutional challenges in low-income settings. In this article, we report on qualitative research conducted in five low- and middle-income countries exploring the experiences of key research stakeholders and their views about what constitutes good data-sharing practice.

Evidence-informed recommendations to reduce dissemination bias in clinical research: conclusions from the OPEN (Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) project based on an international consensus meeting

BACKGROUND

Dissemination bias in clinical research severely impedes informed decision-making not only for healthcare professionals and patients, but also for funders, research ethics committees, regulatory bodies and other stakeholder groups that make health-related decisions. Decisions based on incomplete and biased evidence cannot only harm people, but may also have huge financial implications by wasting resources on ineffective or harmful diagnostic and therapeutic measures, and unnecessary research. Owing to involvement of multiple stakeholders, it remains easy for any single group to assign responsibility for resolving the problem to others.

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-informed general and targeted recommendations addressing the various stakeholders involved in knowledge generation and dissemination to help overcome the problem of dissemination bias on the basis of previously collated evidence.

METHODS

Based on findings from systematic reviews, document analyses and surveys, we developed general and targeted draft recommendations. During a 2-day workshop in summer 2013, these draft recommendations were discussed with external experts and key stakeholders, and refined following a rigorous and transparent methodological approach.

RESULTS

Four general, overarching recommendations applicable to all or most stakeholder groups were formulated, addressing (1) awareness raising, (2) implementation of targeted recommendations, (3) trial registration and results posting, and (4) systematic approaches to evidence synthesis. These general recommendations are complemented and specified by 47 targeted recommendations tailored towards funding agencies, pharmaceutical and device companies, research institutions, researchers (systematic reviewers and trialists), research ethics committees, trial registries, journal editors and publishers, regulatory agencies, benefit (health technology) assessment institutions and legislators.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite various recent examples of dissemination bias and several initiatives to reduce it, the problem of dissemination bias has not been resolved. Tailored recommendations based on a comprehensive approach will hopefully help increase transparency in biomedical research by overcoming the failure to disseminate negative findings.