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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Heterogeneity and Utility of Pharmaceutical Company Sharing of Individual-Participant Data Packages
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JAMA Oncology, December 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.3996 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ashley M. Hopkins, Natansh D. Modi, Ahmad Y. Abuhelwa, Ganessan Kichenadasse, Nicole M. Kuderer, Gary H. Lyman, Michael D. Wiese, Ross A. McKinnon, Frank W. Rockhold, Aaron Mann, Andrew Rowland, Michael J. Sorich |
| Abstract |
The pharmaceutical industry has made substantial investments in developing processes for sharing individual-participant data (IPD) from clinical trials. However, the utility and completeness of shared IPD and supporting documents must be evaluated to ensure the potential for scientific advancements from the data sharing ecosystem can be realized. To assess the utility and completeness of IPD and supporting documents provided from industry-sponsored clinical trials. From February 9, 2022, to February 9, 2023, 91 of 203 clinical trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration registrations of anticancer medicines for the treatment of solid tumors from the past decade were confirmed as eligible for IPD request. This quality improvement study performed a retrospective audit of the utility and completeness of the IPD and supporting documents provided from the 91 clinical trials for a planned meta-analysis. Request for IPD from 91 clinical oncology trials indicated as eligible for the request. The utility and completeness of the IPD and supporting documents provided. The IPD packages were obtained from 70 of 91 requested clinical trials (77%). The median time to data provision was 123 (range, 117-352) days. Redactions were observed in 18 of the acquired IPD packages (26%) for outcome data, 11 (16%) for assessment variables, and 19 (27%) for adjustment data. Additionally, 20 IPD packages (29%) lacked a clinical study report, 4 (6%) had incomplete or missing data dictionaries, and 20 (29%) were missing anonymization or redaction description files. Access to IPD from 21 eligible trials (23%) was not granted. In this quality improvement study, there was substantial variability within the provided IPD packages regarding the completeness of key data variables and supporting documents. To improve the data sharing ecosystem, key areas for enhancement include (1) ensuring that clinical trials are eligible for IPD sharing, (2) making eligible IPD transparently accessible, and (3) ensuring that IPD packages meet a standard of utility and completeness. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 9% |
| Australia | 2 | 9% |
| Turkey | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 23% |
| Scientists | 3 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 33% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 33% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 31 December 2023.
All research outputs
#640,219
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Oncology
#1,006
of 3,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,951
of 351,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Oncology
#21
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,339 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 84.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 351,077 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 97% 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 well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.