Search

Abstract Background Data-sharing policies in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) should have an evaluation component. The main objective of this case–control study was to assess the impact of published re-uses of RCT data in terms of media attention (Altmetric) and citation rates. Methods Re-uses of RCT data published up to December 2019 (cases) were searched for by two reviewers on 3 repositories (CSDR, YODA project, and Vivli) and matched to control papers published in the same journal. The Altmetric Attention Score (primary outcome), components of this score (e.g. mention of policy sources, media attention) and the total number of citations were compared between these two groups. Results 89 re-uses were identified: 48 (53.9%) secondary analyses, 34 (38.2%) meta-analyses, 4 (4.5%) methodological analyses and 3 (3.4%) re-analyses. The median (interquartile range) Altmetric Attention Scores were 5.9 (1.3—22.2) for re-use and 2.8 (0.3—12.3) for controls (p = 0.14). No statistical difference was found on any of the components of in the Altmetric Attention Score. The median (interquartile range) numbers of citations were 3 (1—8) for reuses and 4 (1 – 11.5) for controls (p = 0.30). Only 6/89 re-uses (6.7%) were cited in a policy source. Conclusions Using all available re-uses of RCT data to date from major data repositories, we were not able to demonstrate that re-uses attracted more attention than a matched sample of studies published in the same journals. Small average differences are still possible, as the sample size was limited. However matching choices have some limitations so results should be interpreted very cautiously. Also, citations by policy sources for re-uses were rare. Trial registration Registration: osf.io/fp62e

Guided by the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), responsible data sharing requires well-organized, high-quality datasets. However, researchers often struggle with implementing Data Management and Sharing Plans (DMSPs) due to lack of knowledge on how to do this, time constraints, legal, technical and financial challenges, particularly concerning data ownership and privacy. While patients support data sharing, researchers and funders may hesitate, fearing the loss of intellectual property or competitive advantage. Although some journals and institutions encourage or mandate data sharing, further progress is needed. Additionally, global solutions are vital to ensure equitable participation from low- and middle-income countries. Ultimately, responsible data sharing requires strategic planning, cultural shifts in research, and coordinated efforts from all stakeholders to become standard practice in biomedical research., (Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clinical trial data-sharing is seen as an imperative for research integrity and is becoming increasingly encouraged or even required by funders, journals, and other stakeholders. However, early experiences with data-sharing have been disappointing because they are not always conducted properly. Health data is indeed sensitive and not always easy to share in a responsible way. We propose 10 rules for researchers wishing to share their data. These rules cover the majority of elements to be considered in order to start the commendable process of clinical trial data-sharing: Rule 1: Abide by local legal and regulatory data protection requirementsRule 2: Anticipate the possibility of clinical trial data-sharing before obtaining fundingRule 3: Declare your intent to share data in the registration stepRule 4: Involve research participantsRule 5: Determine the method of data accessRule 6: Remember there are several other elements to shareRule 7: Do not proceed aloneRule 8: Deploy optimal data management to ensure that the data shared is usefulRule 9: Minimize risksRule 10: Strive for excellence., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Pellen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

In stable coronary heart disease, uncontrolled risk factors are strongly associated with incident myocardial infarction. We analysed the management of hypertension in 746 stable coronary patients recruited between 2005 and 2015 in a single-centre prospective study. Risk factors and pharmacological treatments were documented prior to and immediately after cardiac rehabilitation, and 1 year later. One year post-cardiac rehabilitation, all cardiovascular risk factors were significantly better controlled with the notable exception of hypertension: blood pressure (BP) <140/90 mmHg in 60% of the total population vs 49% (N = 450) of hypertensive patients (20% or 10%, according to the ACC/AHA 2017 or ESH/ESC guidelines, respectively). Of those who had achieved normotension by the end of cardiac rehabilitation, 42% had uncontrolled hypertension again 1 year later; in addition, body weight had increased, while physical activity and antihypertensive drug use had dropped (differences between controlled or uncontrolled hypertension at 1 year post-cardiac rehabilitation, NS). Three factors were correlated with BP elevations: discontinuation of betablockade: +7.9 mmHg; age >65 years: +6.2 mmHg; diabetes mellitus: +7.6 mmHg. Only 48% hypertensive patients were on guideline-recommended antihypertensive polytherapy. Although 28% were still hypertensive post-cardiac rehabilitation, and hypertension remained uncontrolled in 70% 1 year later, 61% antihypertensive prescriptions were not adjusted post-cardiac rehabilitation. One year post-cardiac rehabilitation, hypertension was the only cardiovascular risk factor that had not improved. This can be attributed to three main reasons, all associated with BP elevations: precipitous reduction in betablockade, physicians' inertia when faced with uncontrolled hypertension and lack of adherence to international guidelines., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background and Objective: Case reports have suggested that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) telemonitoring can detect the onset of acute cardiac events such as decompensated heart failure (HF) or atrial fibrillation through an increase in the apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) and onset of Cheyne-Stokes Respiration (CSR). This study addressed whether long-term remote CPAP treatment telemonitoring revealing CSR can help detect serious cardiac events (SCEs) in obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) patients., Methods: This monocentric prospective cohort study included adults receiving CPAP therapy for OSA with daily telemonitoring. Any sudden increase in AHI generated an alert for the home healthcare provider to download CPAP data to identify CSR. A medical consultation was scheduled if CSR was detected., Results: We included 555 adults (412 men; 57% with known cardiovascular comorbidities). During the 1-year follow-up, 78 CSR episodes were detected in 74 patients (CSR+). The main conditions associated with incident CSR were HF (24 patients [30.8%]), ventilatory instability (21, 26.9%), leaks (13, 16.7%), medications inducing central apnoeas (baclofen, ticagrelor, opioids) (7, 9.0%), arrhythmias (6, 7.7%) and renal failure (2, 2.6%). Fifteen (20.3%) CSR+ patients had a confirmed SCE. In univariable analysis, a CSR episode increased the risk of an SCE by 13.8-fold (5.7-35.6) (p < 0.0001), with an adjusted OR of 5.7 (2.0-16.8) in multivariable analysis., Conclusion: Long-term telemonitoring of patients on CPAP treatment can alert CSR episodes and allows early detection of SCEs in patients with or without known cardiac comorbidities., (© 2021 Asian Pacific Society of Respirology.)

Florian Naudet and co-authors discuss strengthening requirements for sharing clinical trial data., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: the authors have declared that no competing interests exist. CA received postdoctoral grants from Uppsala University, the Blanceflor Foundation, and the Swedish Society of Medicine. In the past 36 months, JDW received research support through the Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and through the Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) at Yale University and the Mayo Clinic (U01FD005938).

Objective: To explore the impact of the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM) data-sharing policy for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in terms of output from data-sharing (i.e. publications re-using the data)., Study Design and Setting: Retrospective study. RCTs published in the AIM between 2007 and 2017 were retrieved on PubMed. Publications where the data had been re-used were identified on Web of Science. Searches were performed by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome was any published re-use of the data (re-analysis, secondary analysis, or meta-analysis of individual participant data [MIPD]), where the first, last and corresponding authors were not among the authors of the RCT. Analyses used Cox (primary analysis) models adjusting for RCTs characteristics (registration: https://osf.io/8pj5e/)., Results: 185 RCTs were identified. 106 (57%) mentioned willingness to share data and 79 (43%) did not. 208 secondary analyses, 67 MIPD and no re-analyses were identified. No significant association was found between intent to share and re-use where the first, last and corresponding authors were not among the authors of the primary RCT (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.04 [0.47-2.30])., Conclusion: Over ten years, RCTs published in AIM expressing an intention to share data were not associated with more extensive re-use of the data., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)