↓ Skip to main content

How should individual participant data (IPD) from publicly funded clinical trials be shared?

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
38 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
How should individual participant data (IPD) from publicly funded clinical trials be shared?
Published in
BMC Medicine, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0532-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Tudur Smith, C. Hopkins, M. R. Sydes, K. Woolfall, M. Clarke, G. Murray, P. Williamson

Abstract

Individual participant data (IPD) from completed clinical trials should be responsibly shared to support efficient clinical research, generate new knowledge and bring benefit to patients. The Medical Research Council (MRC) Hubs for Trials Methodology Research (HTMR) has developed guidance to facilitate the sharing of IPD from publicly funded clinical trials. Development of the guidance was completed over four phases which included a focussed review of policy documents, a web-based survey of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (CRC) Registered Clinical Trials Units (CTU) Network, participation of an expert committee and an open consultation with the UKCRC Registered CTU Network. The project was funded by the MRC HTMR (MR/L004933/1-R39). Good practice principles include: (i) the use of a controlled access approach, using a transparent and robust system to review requests and provide secure data access; (ii) seeking consent for sharing IPD from trial participants in all future clinical trials with adequate assurance that patient privacy and confidentiality can be maintained; and (iii) establishing an approach to resource the sharing of IPD which would include support from trial funders, sponsor organisations and users of IPD. The guidance has been endorsed by Cancer Research UK, MRC Methodology Research Programme Advisory Group, Wellcome Trust and the Executive Group of the UKCRC Registered CTU Network. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has confirmed it is supportive of the application of this guidance. Implementation of these principles will improve transparency, increase the coherent sharing of IPD from publicly funded trials, and help publicly funded trials to adhere to trial funder and journal requirements for data sharing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 4%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 69 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 15%
Other 9 12%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Librarian 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 22 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 32%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 26 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 17 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,233,103
of 24,047,183 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#862
of 3,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,305
of 370,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#15
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,047,183 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,664 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 370,668 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.