A search (precision value 94%, recall value 93%) of the ISI Web of Science database (1992-2001) revealed that mental health publications accounted for 3-4% of the health literature. A 10/90 divide in internationally accessible mental health literature was evident and remained undiminished through 10 years as low- and middle-income countries (n=152) contributed only 6%, high-income countries (n=54) 94%, and 14 leading high-income countries (with more than 1% contribution for majority of years under consideration) contributed 90% of internationally accessible mental health research. Steps should be taken to improve the research infrastructure and capacity to conduct and disseminate mental health research in general, and on a priority basis in low- and middle-income countries.

ObjectivesWe examined major issues associated with sharing of individual clinical trial data and developed a consensus document on providing access to individual participant data from clinical trials, using a broad interdisciplinary approach.Design and methodsThis was a consensus-building process among the members of a multistakeholder task force, involving a wide range of experts (researchers, patient representatives, methodologists, information technology experts, and representatives from funders, infrastructures and standards development organisations). An independent facilitator supported the process using the nominal group technique. The consensus was reached in a series of three workshops held over 1 year, supported by exchange of documents and teleconferences within focused subgroups when needed. This work was set within the Horizon 2020-funded project CORBEL (Coordinated Research Infrastructures Building Enduring Life-science Services) and coordinated by the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network. Thus, the focus was on non-commercial trials and the perspective mainly European.OutcomeWe developed principles and practical recommendations on how to share data from clinical trials.ResultsThe task force reached consensus on 10 principles and 50 recommendations, representing the fundamental requirements of any framework used for the sharing of clinical trials data. The document covers the following main areas: making data sharing a reality (eg, cultural change, academic incentives, funding), consent for data sharing, protection of trial participants (eg, de-identification), data standards, rights, types and management of access (eg, data request and access models), data management and repositories, discoverability, and metadata.ConclusionsThe adoption of the recommendations in this document would help to promote and support data sharing and reuse among researchers, adequately inform trial participants and protect their rights, and provide effective and efficient systems for preparing, storing and accessing data. The recommendations now need to be implemented and tested in practice. Further work needs to be done to integrate these proposals with those from other geographical areas and other academic domains.

IntroductionThe benefits of clinical trials registration include improved transparency on clinical trials for healthcare workers and patients, increased accountability of trialists, the potential to address publication bias and selective reporting, and possibilities for research collaboration and prioritization. However, poor quality of information in registered records of trials has been found to undermine these benefits in the past. Trialists' increasing experience with trial registration and recent developments in registration systems may have positively affected data quality. This study was conducted to investigate whether the quality of registration has improved.MethodsWe repeated a study from 2009, using the same methods and the same research team. A random sample of 400 records of clinical trials that were registered between 01/01/2012 and 01/01/2013 was taken from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and assessed for the quality of information on 1) contact details, 2) interventions and 3) primary outcomes. Results were compared to the equivalent assessments from our previous study.ResultsThere was a small and not statistically significant increase from 81.0% to 85.5% in the percentage of records that provided a name of a contact person. There was a significant increase from 68.7% to 74.9% in the number of records that provided either an email address or a telephone number. There was a significant increase from 44.2% to 51.9% in the number of intervention arms that were complete in registering intervention specifics. There was a significant increase from 38.2% to 57.6% in the number of primary outcomes that were specific measures with a meaningful timeframe. Approximately half of all trials continued to be retrospectively registered.DiscussionThere have been small but significant improvements in the quality of registration since 2009. Important problems with quality remain and continue to constitute an impediment to the meaningful utilization of registered trial information.

Vasee Moorthy and colleagues explain why the WHO is calling for public disclosure of clinical trial results.

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence shows that sharing health research data with other researchers for secondary analyses can contribute to better health. This is especially important in the context of a public health emergency when stopping a pandemic depends on accelerating science. METHODS: We analysed the information on data sharing collected by the 18 clinical trial registries included in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to understand the reporting of data sharing plans and which studies were and were not planning to share data. Data on sponsor and funder organisations, country of recruitment, registry, and condition of study were standardised to compare the sharing of information and data across these facets. This represents the first ever comprehensive study of the complete data set contained in ICTRP. RESULTS: Across 132,545 studies registered between January 2019 and December 2020, 11.2% of studies stated that individual patient data (IPD) would be shared. Plans to share IPD varied across the 18 contributing registries– information on data sharing was missing in >95% of study records across 7/18 registries. In the 26,851 (20.3%) studies that were funded or sponsored by a commercial entity, intention to share IPD was similar to those that were not (11.5% vs 11.2%). Intention to share IPD was most common in studies recruiting across both high-income and low- or middle-income countries (21.4%) and in those recruiting in Sub-Saharan Africa (50.3%). Studies of COVID-19 had similar levels of data sharing to studies of other non-pandemic diseases in 2020 (13.7% vs 11.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of planned IPD sharing vary between clinical trial registries and economic regions, and are similar whether commercial or non-commercial agencies are involved. Despite many calls to action, plans to share IPD have not increased significantly and remain below 14% for diseases causing public health emergencies.

No abstract