Suppr超能文献

为什么我们需要方便地获取所有临床试验的数据,以及如何实现这一目标。

Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it.

机构信息

Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.

出版信息

Trials. 2011 Nov 23;12:249. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-249.

Abstract

International calls for registering all trials involving humans and for sharing the results, and sometimes also the raw data and the trial protocols, have increased in recent years. Such calls have come, for example, from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Health Organization (WHO), the US National Institutes of Heath, the US Congress, the European Commission, the European ombudsman, journal editors, The Cochrane Collaboration, and several funders, for example the UK Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation. Calls for data sharing have mostly been restricted to publicly-funded research, but I argue that the distinction between publicly-funded and industry-funded research is an artificial and irrelevant one, as the interests of the patients must override commercial interests. I also argue why it is a moral imperative to render all results from all trials involving humans, also healthy volunteers, publicly available. Respect for trial participants who often run a personal and unknown risk by participating in trials requires that they--and therefore also the society at large that they represent--be seen as the ultimate owners of trial data. Data sharing would lead to tremendous benefits for patients, progress in science, and rational use of healthcare resources based on evidence we can trust. The harmful consequences are minor compared to the benefits. It has been amply documented that the current situation, with selective reporting of favorable research and biased data analyses being the norm rather than the exception, is harmful to patients and has led to the death of tens of thousands of patients that could have been avoided. National and supranational legislation is needed to make data sharing happen as guidelines and other voluntary agreements do not work. I propose the contents of such legislation and of appropriate sanctions to hold accountable those who refuse to share their data.

摘要

近年来,国际上呼吁注册所有涉及人类的临床试验,并分享结果,有时还包括原始数据和试验方案。这些呼吁来自经济合作与发展组织(OECD)、世界卫生组织(WHO)、美国国立卫生研究院、美国国会、欧盟委员会、欧洲监察员、期刊编辑、考科蓝协作组织(The Cochrane Collaboration)以及一些资助者,如英国医学研究理事会(Medical Research Council)、惠康信托基金会(Wellcome Trust)、比尔及梅琳达·盖茨基金会(Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation)和赫威基金会(Hewlett Foundation)。数据共享的呼吁主要限于公共资助的研究,但我认为,公共资助和行业资助研究之间的区别是人为的、不相关的,因为患者的利益必须优先于商业利益。我还将论证为什么将所有涉及人类的试验,包括健康志愿者,的所有结果都公开是道德上的必要。尊重参与试验的试验参与者,他们通常会因参与试验而面临个人和未知的风险,这要求他们——以及他们所代表的广大社会——被视为试验数据的最终所有者。数据共享将为患者带来巨大的利益,促进科学进步,并基于我们可以信任的证据合理利用医疗保健资源。与收益相比,其有害后果微不足道。有充分的文件记录表明,目前选择性报告有利研究和有偏见的数据分析是常态,而不是例外,这对患者有害,并导致成千上万本可避免的患者死亡。需要国家和超国家立法来实现数据共享,因为指南和其他自愿协议不起作用。我提议制定此类立法的内容,并提出适当的制裁措施,以追究那些拒绝分享数据的人的责任。

相似文献

1
Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it.
Trials. 2011 Nov 23;12:249. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-249.
2
Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults and children.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jan 18;1:CD008965. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008965.pub3.
3
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
5
Guidelines, editors, pharma and the biological paradigm shift.
Mens Sana Monogr. 2007 Jan;5(1):27-30. doi: 10.4103/0973-1229.32176.
7
The project data sphere initiative: accelerating cancer research by sharing data.
Oncologist. 2015 May;20(5):464-e20. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0431. Epub 2015 Apr 15.

引用本文的文献

1
A call for open science in forensics.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Jun 11;121(24):e2321809121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2321809121. Epub 2024 May 23.
3
Data sharing implementation in top 10 ophthalmology journals in 2021.
BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2023 Jul;8(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjophth-2023-001276.
4
Clinical Trial Data Transparency in the EU: Is the New Clinical Trials Regulation a Game-Changer?
IIC Int Rev Ind Prop Copyr Law. 2023;54(5):732-763. doi: 10.1007/s40319-023-01329-4. Epub 2023 May 4.
5
Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017.
Nat Commun. 2021 Oct 5;12(1):5840. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26027-y.
6
Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 May 12;20(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-00964-6.
7
Open to the public: paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing.
Res Involv Engagem. 2020 Feb 28;6:8. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-0182-y. eCollection 2020.
8
Do Robotics and Virtual Reality Add Real Progress to Mirror Therapy Rehabilitation? A Scoping Review.
Rehabil Res Pract. 2018 Aug 19;2018:6412318. doi: 10.1155/2018/6412318. eCollection 2018.
9
Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis.
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Oct;44(10):1603-1612. doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5293-7. Epub 2018 Aug 21.
10
Clinical Trial Participants' Views of the Risks and Benefits of Data Sharing.
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 7;378(23):2202-2211. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1713258.

本文引用的文献

1
Opening up data at the European Medicines Agency.
BMJ. 2011 May 10;342:d2686. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d2686.
2
From Mexico to Mali: four years in the history of clinical trial registration.
J Evid Based Med. 2009 Feb;2(1):1-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-5391.2009.01014.x.
3
Big publishers cut access to journals in poor countries.
Lancet. 2011 Jan 22;377(9762):273-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60067-6.
4
Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jan 19;2011(1):MR000031. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000031.pub2.
5
Ensuring safe and effective drugs: who can do what it takes?
BMJ. 2011 Jan 11;342:c7258. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c7258.
6
Sharing research data to improve public health.
Lancet. 2011 Feb 12;377(9765):537-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62234-9. Epub 2011 Jan 7.
7
A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials.
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jan 4;154(1):50-5. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-1-201101040-00007.
8
Finding studies on reboxetine: a tale of hide and seek.
BMJ. 2010 Oct 12;341:c4942. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c4942.
10
FDA on rosiglitazone. More on advisory committee decision.
BMJ. 2010 Sep 7;341:c4868. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c4868.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验