Sharing individual level data from observational studies and clinical trials: a perspective from NHLBI

Trials

Elizabeth Wagner²  Sean A Coady¹ 

[1] Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 10200, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA;Division of Blood Diseases and Resources, Bethesda, USA

关键词: HIPAA;    Cohort studies;    Clinical trials;    Data sharing;   

Others  :  1093510
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-14-201

 received in 2012-06-19, accepted in 2012-12-07,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

There are numerous benefits to the research community from data sharing, and yet the open sharing of participant level data is not without potential pitfalls. In addition to the scientific community, the interests of study participants who volunteered their data must be considered, along with the interests of study investigators who expend a substantial amount of effort into the design, conduct, and analytical plans for the study. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) has developed a data-sharing protocol focused on balancing the interests of study participants, study investigators, and the research community with independent oversight by the NHLBI IRB. The data repository presently includes individual level data on more than 560,000 participants from 100 Institute-supported clinical trials and observational studies.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Coady and Wagner; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Peng RD, Dominici F, Zeger SL: Reproducible epidemiologic research. Am J Epidemiol 2006, 163:783-789.
• [2]Vickers AJ: Whose data set is it anyway? Sharing raw data from randomized trials. Trials 2006, 7:15. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Gøtzsche PC: Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it. Trials 2011, 12:249. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Gøtzsche PC: Strengthening and opening up health research by sharing our raw data. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012, 5:236-237.
• [5]Krumholz HM: Open science and data sharing in clinical research: basing informed decisions on the totality of the evidence. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012, 5:141-142.
• [6]Ross JS, Lehman R, Gross CP: The importance of clinical trial data sharing: toward more open science. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012, 5:238-240.
• [7]Kost RG, Lee LM, Yessis J, Coller BS, Henderson DK: Assessing research participants’ perceptions of their clinical research experiences. Clin Transl Sci 2011, 4:403-413.
• [8]McCann SK, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA: Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self. Trials 2010, 11:31. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Benitez K, Malin B: Evaluating re-identification risks with respect to the HIPAA privacy rule. JAMIA 2010, 17:169-177.
• [10]Malin B, Karp D, Scheuermann RH: Technical and policy approaches to balancing patient privacy and data sharing in clinical and translational research. J Invest Med 2010, 58:11-18.
• [11]Psaty BM, Arnett D, Burke G: A New Era of cardiovascular disease epidemiology. JAMA 2007, 298:2060-2062.
• [12]Pearce N, Smith AH: Data sharing: not as simple as it seems. Environ Health 2011, 10:107. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Spertus JA: The double-edged sword of open access to research data. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012, 5:143-144.
• [14]Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2012. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/ webcite