| Title |
To share or not to share? Expected pros and cons of data sharing in radiological research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Radiology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00330-017-5165-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesco Sardanelli, Marco Alì, Myriam G. Hunink, Nehmat Houssami, Luca M. Sconfienza, Giovanni Di Leo |
| Abstract |
The aims of this paper are to illustrate the trend towards data sharing, i.e. the regulated availability of the original patient-level data obtained during a study, and to discuss the expected advantages (pros) and disadvantages (cons) of data sharing in radiological research. Expected pros include the potential for verification of original results with alternative or supplementary analyses (including estimation of reproducibility), advancement of knowledge by providing new results by testing new hypotheses (not explored by the original authors) on pre-existing databases, larger scale analyses based on individual-patient data, enhanced multidisciplinary cooperation, reduced publication of false studies, improved clinical practice, and reduced cost and time for clinical research. Expected cons are outlined as the risk that the original authors could not exploit the entire potential of the data they obtained, possible failures in patients' privacy protection, technical barriers such as the lack of standard formats, and possible data misinterpretation. Finally, open issues regarding data ownership, the role of individual patients, advocacy groups and funding institutions in decision making about sharing of data and images are discussed. • Regulated availability of patient-level data of published clinical studies (data-sharing) is expected. • Expected benefits include verification/advancement of knowledge, reduced cost/time of research, clinical improvement. • Potential drawbacks include faults in patients' identity protection and data misinterpretation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 3 | 20% |
| Spain | 3 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 13% |
| Comoros | 1 | 7% |
| Italy | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 27% |
| Scientists | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 15% |
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 19 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 23% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 12% |
| Engineering | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 24 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,735,616
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#127
of 4,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,701
of 441,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#1
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,128 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,085 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.