↓ Skip to main content

Opening clinical trial data: are the voluntary data-sharing portals enough?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
81 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Opening clinical trial data: are the voluntary data-sharing portals enough?
Published in
BMC Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0525-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nophar Geifman, Jennifer Bollyky, Sanchita Bhattacharya, Atul J. Butte

Abstract

Data generated by the numerous clinical trials conducted annually worldwide have the potential to be extremely beneficial to the scientific and patient communities. This potential is well recognized and efforts are being made to encourage the release of raw patient-level data from these trials to the public. The issue of sharing clinical trial data has recently gained attention, with many agreeing that this type of data should be made available for research in a timely manner. The availability of clinical trial data is most important for study reproducibility, meta-analyses, and improvement of study design. There is much discussion in the community over key data sharing issues, including the risks this practice holds. However, one aspect that remains to be adequately addressed is that of the accessibility, quality, and usability of the data being shared. Herein, experiences with the two current major platforms used to store and disseminate clinical trial data are described, discussing the issues encountered and suggesting possible solutions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 81 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 21%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Other 5 12%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 14%
Engineering 5 12%
Computer Science 4 9%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 2 5%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 04 September 2019.
All research outputs
#858,041
of 25,342,911 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#615
of 3,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,605
of 289,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#12
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,342,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,987 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 289,846 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.