Use of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Data Repository.
Pubmed ID: 28402243
Pubmed Central ID: PMC5665376
Journal: The New England journal of medicine
Publication Date: May 11, 2017
MeSH Terms: Humans, United States, Clinical Trials as Topic, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U.S.), Observational Studies as Topic, Datasets as Topic, Bibliometrics, Information Dissemination, Periodicals as Topic
Grants: Z99 HL999999
Authors: Giffen CA, Coady SA, Wagner EL, Hitchcock DM, Mensah GA, Goldfarb ME
Cite As: Coady SA, Mensah GA, Wagner EL, Goldfarb ME, Hitchcock DM, Giffen CA. Use of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Data Repository. N Engl J Med 2017 May 11;376(19):1849-1858. Epub 2017 Mar 29.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research on data sharing from clinical trials has focused on elucidating perceptions, barriers, and attitudes among trialists and study participants with respect to sharing data. However, little information exists regarding utilization or associated publication of articles once clinical trial data have been widely shared. METHODS: We analyzed administrative records of investigator requests for data access, linked publications, and bibliometrics to describe the use of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute data repository. RESULTS: From January 2000 through May 2016, a total of 370 investigators requested data from 1 or more clinical trials. Requests for trial data have been increasing, with 195 investigators (53%) initiating requests during the last 4.4 years of the study period. The predominant reason for requesting data was post hoc secondary analysis of new questions (72%), followed by analytic or statistical approaches to clinical trials (9%) and meta-analyses or pooled study research (7%). Of 172 requests with online project descriptions, only 2 requests were initiated for reanalysis of primary-outcome findings. Data from 88 of 100 available clinical trials were requested at least once, and the median time from repository availability to first request was 235 days. A total of 277 articles were published on the basis of data from 47 trials. Citation metrics from 224 articles indicated that half of the publications have cumulative citations that rank in the top 34% normalized for subject category and year of publication. CONCLUSIONS: Demand for trial data for secondary analysis has been increasing. Requesting data for the a priori purpose of reanalysis or verification of original findings was rare.