↓ Skip to main content

Sharing raw data from clinical trials: what progress since we first asked “Whose data set is it anyway?”

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, May 2016
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
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
Sharing raw data from clinical trials: what progress since we first asked “Whose data set is it anyway?”
Published in
Trials, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1369-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew J. Vickers

Abstract

Ten years ago, one of the first papers published in Trials was a commentary entitled "Whose data set is it anyway?" The commentary pointed out that trialists routinely refused requests for data sharing and argued that this attitude was a community standard that had no rational basis. At the time, there had been few calls for clinical trial data sharing and certainly no institutional support. Today the situation could not be more different. Numerous organizations now recommend or require raw data to be made available, including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which recently proposed that clinical trial data sharing be a "condition of … publication." Furthermore, the literature is replete with papers covering an enormously wide variety of topics on data sharing. But despite a tectonic shift in attitudes, we are yet to see clinical trial data sharing become an unquestioned norm, where a researcher can readily download a data set from a trial almost as easily as they can now download a copy of the published paper. The battle over the next few years is to go beyond changing minds to ensuring that real data sets are routinely made available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Researcher 8 17%
Other 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Professor 4 9%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 26%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 02 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,869,339
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#19
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,475
of 313,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 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 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one scored the same or higher as 26 of them.
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 313,916 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.